Appeal No. 1999-1746 Page 5
Application No. 08/827,841
examiner's rejections of claim 1 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).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 5 and 7) generally that
the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed subject
matter. We agree.
The claim under appeal requires "an anti-rotation pad
between the room wall and the front wall of said bracket
portion." However, this limitation is not suggested by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007