Appeal No. 1997-1503 Page 6
Application No. 08/422,649
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Only if that burden is met, does the burden
of coming forward with evidence or argument shift
to the applicant. Id. "A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
skill in the art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976)). If the examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will
be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With these in mind, we analyze the appellants’ argument.
The appellants argue, "Jenkins et al. teach a two step
process for loading the cartridges into the cells of the cell
drum, not a direct entry . . . . " (Appeal Br. at 8-9.) The
examiner’s reply follows.
Clearly, figure 11 of Jenkins et al. depicts part of
the cell unit, shute [sic] (36), which does satisfy
the claimed "direct entry feature." Appellant [sic]
also, argues that Jenkins et al. does not teach a
door configured "to allow a large number of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007