Appeal No. 96-2860 Page 8
Application No. 08/049,408
establish the obviousness of defining Döppel's cap 1 from plural
panels. Additionally, Döppel's depressions 24 are not readable
on the coaxial recessed groove as recited in claim 41. The
examiner never determined that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill to modify Döppel's depressions 24 to be a
coaxial recessed groove.
In summary, we see no motivation in the applied prior art of
why one skilled in the art would have modified the device of
Döppel to make the modifications necessary to arrive at the
claimed invention. Thus, the examiner has failed to meet the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. 4
Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed
independent claim 41, or claims 42 through 61 which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4Note In re Rijckaert, supra; In re Lintner, supra; and In
re Fine, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007