Appeal No. 98-0111
Application No. 08/290,213
Taylor’s statement that the material used for the disclosed
device is thermoplastic sheets, and that these sheets are of
such rigidity as to be self-supporting, causes us to agree
with the examiner that the Taylor device meets the requirement
in claim 6 that the liner be of a “substantially rigid
material.” This being the case, we shall sustain the Section
102 rejection of independent claim 6, as well as the rejection
of claims 8-10 and 13, which are grouped therewith.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejections 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)), 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 (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). This is not to say, however, that the
claimed invention must expressly be suggested in any one or
all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007