Appeal No. 2000-0859 Page 8
Application No. 08/777,668
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).
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 6-9)
that claims 9 to 21 are not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based upon the teachings of the applied prior art. In that
regard, it is our opinion that the applied prior art does not
suggest or teach "means for detachably fastening said
decorative panel to said container to be flush with said
platform" as recited in independent claim 9; "means defining
an elongate recess in said vertical wall which is adjacent and
extends along the periphery of said platform, and means in
said recess means for detachably fastening a decorative panel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007