Appeal No. 2000-0324 Page 5 Application No. 08/763,874 examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal. 1 The teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Desai and Khalil) would not have made it obvious at the time the2 invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention. While the teachings of the applied prior art may have made it obvious to such an artisan to have replaced Desai's thermistors 531 with thermocouples to sense the ablation temperature at the electrode tip of Desai's catheter, we fail to find any teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art which would have made it obvious to such an artisan to have located the 1In 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). 2The teachings of Desai and Khalil are set forth in the final rejection (pp. 2-3) and in the brief (pp. 8-9).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007