Appeal No. 97-0081
Application No. 08/226,532
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 the reference
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill
in the relevant art having the references before him to make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual 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). This the examiner
has not done. The examiner points to nothing in the cited
Robinson reference, either alone or in combination with Zvanut,
suggesting or teaching the appellants' claimed invention.
Zvanut teaches the use of clamping arrangement 10 for
affixing first and second members 12 and 14 to a support member
11. The clamping arrangement 10 includes a U-bolt 16 for
clamping the first and second members 12 and 14 about the support
member 11. The U-bolt 16 is inserted through holes 18, 20 in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007