Appeal No. 1998-3295 Page 4
Application No. 08/054,223
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, p. 14) that the rejection of 4
claim 2 is improper since the references (i.e., Shore and
Rappaport) fail to suggest a modification of the prior art
that "would produce the claimed invention." We agree for the
following reasons.
Claim 2 recites in part a side-fold greeting card design
consisting of a front-sheet and a back-sheet. Claim 2 further
4The rejection of claim 2 is set forth on pages 3-4 of
the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007