Appeal No. 1998-2142 Page 6
Application No. 08/125,189
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)).
With these principles and finding in mind, we consider the
examiner's rejection and appellants' argument.
The examiner alleges, "it would be [sic] obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art ... to provide one of the
conductive layers 150 or 152 of Nakajima et al with a line-
shaped pattern electrode so that a more uniform temperature
distribution in the circumferential direction of the roller is
achieved, as suggested by Satomura ...." (Examiner's Answer at
8.) The appellants argue, "[i]n such a combination, the
current supplied to one of the electrodes 5A or 5B would flow
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007