Appeal No. 97-3070
Application 08/584,097
relied on by the examiner establishes a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter defined by
independent claims 12 and 28 and "argued" dependent claim 15.
Having arrived at this conclusion, 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, 1538, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (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 and
argument supplied by the appellant. See In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As evidence of nonobviousness the appellant has relied on
two declarations by Close and a declaration by Ross. The
first declaration by Close (executed April 28, 1995; Paper No.
9) merely states that the easel described in the instant
application "makes possible the movement and positioning of
the canvas in any direction to the ideal position" and that
these unique features are "found in no other easel ever
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007