Appeal No. 1997-1765 Page 5
Application No. 08/324,927
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 (brief, pp. 9-11) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter.
Specifically, the appellant asserts that nowhere is there any
basis (i.e., suggestion) for applying the vents of Robert to
the cover of Herron. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require (1) a unitary
flexible cover member of material substantially impermeable to
air; (2) at least one exhaust aperture in the cover member;
and (3) a venting member disposed over the exhaust aperture.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007