Appeal No. 2006-2208
Application No. 10/782,265
indicates that the different appearance is achieved by virtue of
having their associated content (answer, pages 18-21).
As a general proposition, 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) and In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In
considering the question of the obviousness of the claimed
invention in view of the prior art relied upon, the Examiner is
expected to make the factual determination set forth in Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to
provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in the pertinent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007