Appeal No. 96-3263
Application No. 08/363,594
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time
of appellant's invention. In that regard, we see no teaching
whatsoever that would have suggested using ANCRA Part No. 43451-
11 with a track having circular apertures. Nothing in Berns
discloses or suggests that a coupling clip member having the
claimed articulating locking structure be used with a track
having circular apertures. As earlier mentioned, ANCRA only
instructs one to use Part No. 43451-11 with Series A and E tracks
(not Series F track with circular apertures). It appears to us
that the examiner has engaged in a hindsight reconstruction of
the claimed invention, using the appellant's structure as a
template. This, of course, is impermissible. Since all the 4
limitations of claim 1 are not taught or suggested by the applied
prior art, the examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, we cannot 5
sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claim 1, or claims 2
through 4 and 6 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over ANCRA Part No. 43451-11 and Series F
track in view of Berns.
4 In re Fine, supra; In re Warner, supra.
5Note In re Rijckaert, supra; In re Lintner, supra; and In
re Fine, supra.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007