Appeal No. 96-1087
Application 08/068,700
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, 458 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 generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In determining
obviousness/nonobviousness, an invention must be considered "as a whole," 35 U.S.C. §
103, and claims must be considered in their entirety. Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac
Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220 USPQ 97, 101 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007