Appeal No. 97-1439 Page 7
Application No. 08/417,981
indefinite. Thus, it is our determination that claim 12 does
define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly,
we have determined that claim 12 is definite.
Prior art issues
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In 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).
Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by
some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007