Appeal No. 1997-4013 Page 9
Application No. 08/145,867
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 this case, we agree with the appellant's argument
(revised brief, pp. 13-15 & 19; reply brief, pp. 4-6) that the
applied prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter.
All the claims subject to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 require the first, second and third plates be generally
rectangular but having at least one projection as set forth in
claim 26 or claim 40. While Saumsiegle does teach a plate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007