Appeal No. 1997-2567
Application 08/390,029
means of the primary prior art combination (France 2167536
taken together with Reetz) with openings of different cross
sections and flow stopping means, in
view of Hahn et al, since such would greatly increase the
flexibility of the apparatus of the primary prior art
combination” (answer, pages 5-6).
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the
prior art could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner must explain why the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
desirability of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at
1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007