Appeal No. 96-1238
Application 08/082,177
After careful consideration of the arguments presented by the
examiner and the appellants, We reverse.
Opinion
It is well settled that the Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) has the burden under 35 U.S.C. section 103 of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). This burden can be satisfied when the PTO, through the
examiner, presents evidence by means of some teaching,
suggestion, or inference either in the applied prior art or in
generally available knowledge, that would have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art or would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the applied reference(s) in the proposed manner
to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071,1074 5 USPQ2d, 1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Carella v.
Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135,139 231 USPQ 644,647 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 304, 227 USPQ 657,673 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007