Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 7
Application No. 08/093,664
With respect to the appealed claims, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious in view of 4
the combined teachings of the applied prior art to modify Sadao's
toilet deodorizing apparatus to arrive at the claimed invention.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of the
applied prior art are sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness, we recognize that the evidence of nonobviousness
submitted by the appellant 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 supplied by
the appellant. 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).
4In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness
is established by presenting evidence that the reference
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill
in the relevant art having the references before him to make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007