Appeal No. 1997-3482
Application No. 08/431,779
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
At the outset, we note that each of the dependent claims
6, 10, and 11 recites that the gap between the first and
second ribs has a specific dimension, i.e., about 0.2 mm or
0.1 mm. As the basis for the obviousness rejection, the
Examiner asserts (Answer, page 8) the obviousness to the
skilled artisan to provide a gap width, in Weavers, of the
presently claimed dimensions “through routine optimization and
experimentation.”
After reviewing the arguments in response, we are in
agreement with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants’
specification at page 6 describes the importance of the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007