Appeal No. 96-2623
Application No. 08/240,095
adjust the pressing head and the fact that utilizing a vertical
adjusting screw for raising and lowering an object was well known
in the art. In our view, the substitution of one well known
vertical adjustment means for another known vertical adjustment
means would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in this art.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
Having arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of the
prior art are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, we recognize that the evidence of nonobviousness
submitted by the appellants must be considered en route to a
determination of obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218
USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we consider anew the
issue of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, carefully evaluating
therewith the objective evidence of nonobviousness and argument
supplied by the appellants. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445-46, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444-45 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007