Appeal No. 2000-0875 Page 4
Application No. 08/945,138
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 appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-14) that the applied
prior art (i.e., Okakda and Phalin) does not suggest the
claimed subject matter. We agree. All the claims under
appeal recite a plurality/several ironing rings through which
a cup is pushed by a mandrel. We have reviewed the teachings
of the applied prior art and find no teaching or suggestion
therein of a plurality/several ironing rings through which a
cup is pushed by a mandrel. Since the applied prior art2
2The appellants admit that a plurality/several ironing
rings through which a cup is pushed by a mandrel as shown in
Figure 2 is prior art (specification, p. 3), however, the
examiner has not utilized this admission in the rejection
before us in this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007