Appeal No. 2003-0291 Page 4
Application No. 09/569,074
claims 1 to 5, 7 to 11, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 3-6) that the applied prior art does not suggest
the claimed subject matter. We agree.
The claims under appeal are drawn to a fixture for restraining a workpiece
comprising, inter alia, (1) a base having a surface and an internal cavity with an opening
in the surface; (2) a flexible membrane extending across the cavity adjacent to the
opening; (3) fluid located within the cavity to provide the membrane with a resilient
outer surface; and (4) adhesive on the outer surface of the membrane for substantially
restraining the workpiece from movement in a direction tangential to the membrane
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007