Appeal No. 2000-0298
Application No. 08/832,013
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We initially note that the rejection is made under 35
U.S.C. § 103, and 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 art having the
references before him to make the proposed combination or
other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 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 lead that individual
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). With this
background we analyze the prior art applied by the examiner in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007