Appeal No. 2000-0004 Page 7
Application No. 08/872,004
sustain this rejection because the appellant has not specifically
addressed this rejection and the appellant has indicated that
these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (See brief at page 3).
In regard to the rejection of claims 7 through 10, and 12
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
McBride in view of Hasselquist, we initially note that 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. See In re Lintner,
9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore,
the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007