Appeal No. 97-1691 Application No. 08/519,375 examiner asserts. Rather, these members move into an open space between the compression chamber 16 and roller conveyors 37 of a packing and binding device in order to "bridge the distance" (column 4, lines 65 and 66) between these two work stations. Since there is nothing in either Rieger or Strömberg which either teaches or fairly suggests a moveable retaining wall that pivots into an opening in a packaging chamber as expressly required by independent claim 1, the prior art relied on by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter defined by claims 1-10. Since the prior art relied on by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we need not consider the appellant's evidence of nonobviousness. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In view of the above, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Rieger and Strömberg. In summary: 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007