Appeal No. 1998-1435 Page 4
Application No. 08/132,584
persuaded, however, that he did not err in rejecting claims
31-36. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With these principles in mind, we address the nonobviousness
of claims 27-30 and the obviousness of claims 31-36.
Nonobviousness of Claims 27-30
The appellants argue, "According to Halley, the heated
air is discharged immediately out of the dryer head through
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007