Appeal No. 96-3463
Application 08/514,835
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 prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will
be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Turning specifically to the rejection of claims 12, 14,
16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hauk in view of Schulze-Beckinghausen, the
examiner considers that it would have been obvious
to modify Hauk by using two movable jaw dies, one
movable to a greater degree than the other because
Schulze-Beckinghausen suggests the use of two movable
jaw dies, one movable to a greater degree than the
other to allow for better gripping and ungripping.
[Answer, page 3.]
In support of this position the examiner urges that the active
jaw 27 of Schulze-Beckinghausen is mounted for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007