Appeal No. 1998-0030 Page 5
Application No. 08/151,960
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 3, 8 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
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). Additionally, as set
forth in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2141
"Patent examiners carry the responsibility of making sure that
the standard of patentability enunciated by the Supreme Court
and by the Congress is applied in each and every case" and
that Office policy has consistently been to follow Graham v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007