Appeal No. 1998-3301 Page 15
Application No. 08/784,361
Since all the limitations of claims 2, 4 through 7, 12
through 15 and 25 are not found in a single reference (i.e.,
Crowder, Wright or Harmony), the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 2, 4 through 7, 12 through 15 and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 through 10,
17 through 19 and 26 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references
before him to make the proposed combination or other
modification to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007