Appeal No. 2002-0540 Page 7
Application No. 09/589,434
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Brush
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Feightner.1 Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 2-7, which depend from claim 1; of claim 8; and of
claims 9-15 and 17, which depend from claim 8.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 18, 19, and 22 under § 102(b) is reversed.
The rejection of claims 2-15 and 17 under § 103(a) is reversed.
1In an ex parte appeal, "the Board is basically a board of review — we review . . .
rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211
(Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2001). Here, our review was limited to the examiner's application of
Feightner and Bush. Our reversal should not be construed to imply that no reference
could cure the deficiency of Feightner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007