Appeal No. 1997-0373 Page 5
Application No. 08/151,694
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 would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art 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) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require (1) a stencil master
plate sheet to carry thereon information indicative of the
outer diameter of the sheet; (2) a reading means/photo
electric sensors for reading/sensing the information carried
on the stencil master plate sheet; and (3) control means/unit
for changing the variable resistance applied to the sheet roll
according to the information read/sensed by the reading
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007