Appeal No. 96-3408
Application No. 08/194,904
shaped snap "about half way up the collar" as recited in claim 6.
The examiner has not provided any factual basis to establish why
this limitation would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art. While the addition of another disc shaped snap may have
been obvious as stated by the examiner, this by itself is not
sufficient, in our opinion, to render obvious the limitation
mentioned above. Thus, it appears to us that the examiner has
engaged in a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention,
using the appellants' claim as a template. This, of course, is
impermissible. Since all the limitations of claim 6 are not4
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 sustain the examiner's5
rejection of appealed claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Reimer.
4 In re Fine, supra; In re Warner, supra.
5Note In re Rijckaert, supra; In re Lintner, supra; and In
re Fine, supra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007