Appeal No. 2003-0717 Page 5
Application No. 09/549,118
these two claimed features, the examiner concluded that such differences were not
patentable absent proof that the claimed novel indicator would improve noticeability.
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
have modified the applied primary reference 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). Even when obviousness is
based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or
motivation to modify the teachings of that reference. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,
1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a reference may flow
from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved, see Pro-Mold &
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630
(Fed. Cir. 1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007