Appeal No. 97-1758 Page 8
Application No. 08/326,721
forward end 14. See Fig. 1. In summary, the claimed two
mounting locations, with one location adjacent to the
aperture, are absent from Wanger. The absence of the claimed
elements negates anticipation of independent claim 13 and its
dependent claim 14. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Nonobviousness
We begin our consideration of the nonobviousness of
claims 1, 3-12, and 15-22 by recalling that in rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the patent examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. A prima facie case is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
skill in the art. If the examiner fails to establish a prima
facie case, an obviousness rejection is improper and will be
overturned. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With this in mind, we analyze
the examiner’s rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007