Appeal No. 96-0984
Application 08/132,529
skill in the art to provide a “texture,” as suggested
by Bridger, on the “seat” surface of the Glass bedpan,
in order to prevent a patient seated thereon from
sliding relative to the bowl. [Final rejection, pages 4
and 5.]
In support of this position the answer states that:
A roughened surface, as per the Bridger patent,
has the effect of preventing sliding relative to the
seat. In also has the inherent effect of providing the
seat surface with air passageways comprised of criss-
crossing valleys interrupted by peaks. These features
are characteristic of all roughened surfaces and such
knowledge is well within the realm of ordinary skill.
Therefore, by providing a roughened surface on a seat,
as suggested by Bridger, one is both preventing sliding
relative to the seat and inherently creating criss-
crossing air passageways. [Pages 5 and 6.]
We will not support the examiner’s position. Initially we
note that in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Only if that burden is met
does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift
to the applicant. Id. If the examiner fails to establish a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007