Ex parte NELSON et al. - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 1998-2294                                                                                     Page 4                        
                 Application No. 08/546,298                                                                                                             


                          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).                                                                                                   


                          The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-9) that the applied                                                                        
                 prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter.  We                                                                             
                 agree.                                                                                                                                 


                          All the claims under appeal require the claimed removable                                                                     
                 cap to include a contact means or contact assembly having (1)                                                                          
                 a planar base member for attaching the contact means  to the                                 1                                         


                          1In claim 22, line 6, "said contact means" should be                                                                          
                 amended to --said contact assembly-- for proper antecedent                                                                             
                 basis.                                                                                                                                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007