Appeal No. 1997-2429 Page 4
Application No. 08/323,215
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).
In the final rejection (pp. 2-3), the examiner (1) set
forth the teachings of Theuninck and Laroche; (2) ascertained
that Theuninck does not use compression; and (3) determined
that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art to compress the block of Theuninck to achieve the
benefits discussed by Laroche.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 2-5) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter.
Specifically, the appellants' argue that the suggested
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007