Appeal No. 1998-0484 Page 4
Application No. 08/675465
course, is not the case in the appellant’s disclosure. We do not agree. The appellant has
disclosed that the two openings in the spout bowl are in planes spaced vertically from one
another, as is shown in Figures 1 and 2. It is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art
readily would have understood from the disclosure that describing the lower outlet opening
as being “within” the upper inlet opening is intended to mean that it falls within the
perimeter of the upper opening when viewed along the axis of the spout bowl, for example,
looking down from the top, as in Figure 3.
This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner has taken the position that all of the subject matter recited in
claim 1 is taught by Kirkman, except for the particular relationship between the shapes of
the inlet and the outlet openings of the spout bowl. This, however, the examiner finds in
Barker, concluding it would have been obvious to replace the arrangement of Kirkman with
that of Barker.
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness when rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007