Appeal No. 1997-2986
Application No. 08/260,784
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455
(Fed. Cir. 1998), explains that:
[t]o reject claims in an application under
section 103, an examiner must show an unrebutted
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel,
51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir.
1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case
of obviousness, an applicant who complies with the
other statutory requirements is entitled to a
patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal to
the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness. See id.
F. The merits of the rejection
Levine discloses computer-controlled apparatus for
marking or cutting stock material into the pieces required to
make custom sheet metal fittings. As shown in Figure 15,
which shows the four patterns A-D needed to produce one
fitting, the system determines how to arrange the patterns on
the smallest appropriate piece of sheet stock in order to
minimize waste
(col. 22, lines 24-28). Figure 16 shows patterns drawn on a
roll of coil stock rather than on pieces of sheet stock (col.
2, lines 39-42). Figure 19 shows the groups of patterns for
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007