Appeal No. 96-4165
Application No. 08/333,292
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
presented by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the applied
prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
regarding the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons advanced by appellants, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
At the outset, we note that the examiner has the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness based
on the disclosure of the applied prior art. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
According to the examiner, De Pass discloses "...a
process for forming an injection molded frame having a panel
insert..." including the use of a punch for moving the insert
(answer, page 3). Recognizing that De Pass does not teach the
claimed step of "moving said punch towards said mold to first
shear from said strip material a panel insert," the examiner
relies on Hatakeyama for this step. According to the examiner,
"[i]t would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007