Appeal No. 97-0081
Application No. 08/226,532
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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 claims 1 through 14. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1
through 14 as being unpatentable over Zvanut in view of Robinson,
the examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was
made to modify Zvanut et al. to include the mounting nut as
taught by Robinson, for the purpose of providing a more secured
connection between the u-shaped bolt and the toolbar." We do not
agree.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007