Appeal No. 96-1567 Page 4
Application No. 08/112,914
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
2
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In rejecting claims 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). 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
2We note that this application has been pending for an extended period of time and that the
specification and drawings contain a number of spelling errors and mislabeling of drawing legends which
makes it difficult to easily understand the invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007