Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 12
Application No. 09/089,153
The examiner’s unsupported conclusion of obviousness is not
a substitute for evidence and does not provide a sufficient
factual basis for a showing of incentive or motivation to provide
the prior art flat panel display of Schofield with a hinge and
spring system. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 2 and, consequently, has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to each of claims 3-9, which
depend from claim 2.
The rejection of claims 2-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schofield et al. in view of Gauthier is
therefore reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007