Appeal No. 98-1293 Page 4
Application No. 08/418,833
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellants as set forth in the Answer and the
Brief. Since the rejections are under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we have
evaluated them on the basis that 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)), which is established when the teachings of the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re
Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993)).
The Rejection Based Upon Baxter
Independent claims 1 and 26 are directed to a system for
decorating textile material. Among the requirements of each is
that there be an article of textile material “embellished with
an ornamental design.” Baxter discloses an article of textile
material having on its back surface an outline of hook-and-loop
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007