Appeal No. 96-1249
Application 08/270,215
The rejection
Claims 19-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kuhlman in view of Mikoshiba and Olson.
Appellants have submitted rebuttal evidence in the form of
a 37 CFR § 1.132 declaration.
The PTO has the burden under section 103 to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It can
satisfy this burden only by showing some objective teaching in
the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art that would lead that individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
After a prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
the burden of going forward shifts to the applicant to show
facts supporting the opposite conclusion. Piasecki, 745 F.2d
at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788 (citing In re Heldt, 433 F.2d 808,
811, 167 USPQ 676, 678 (CCPA 1970)).
The examiner relies on the Kuhlman patent (se Fig. 1) for
its disclosure of a touch panel which employs an outer sheet
11 separated by spacers 14 from an inner sheet 12 (col. 3,
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007