Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
backing; and (3) the prongs of the next hanger in the strip
are oriented.
As a portion of the apparatus by which these steps are
accomplished, each of the three independent claims recites paw
means on the anvil means for holding the blank hanger after it
has been severed and until it is inserted into the backing.
The paw means are required to have distal end surfaces which
are “disposed non-perpendicular to the direction of movement
of the anvil means” and are “oblique relative to the
respective longitudinal axes of the paw means.” This
limitation is not taught by the applied references, and forms
the basis upon which we conclude that the teachings of the
references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in the three
independent claims, and thus the rejection cannot be
sustained. 2
2In 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)), which is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art (In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). If the examiner fails to establish a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007