Appeal No. 98-1451 Page 4
Application No. 08/529,187
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness2
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 17
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 17 and 19.
Wilger discloses a propeller manipulating and work stand.
As shown in Figure 1, the propeller manipulating and work
2In 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007