Appeal No. 2004-1076 Page 3
Application No. 09/684,893
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art (Kondoo and
Kusukawa), and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the
evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6 and 7 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).
Kondoo discloses a transfer case integrally formed with an oil pan to increase
hardness by which the number of intrinsic vibrations is increased. Kusukawa discloses,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007