Appeal No. 1998-2372 Page 4
Application No. 08/639,815
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)).
We next find that the references represent the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(finding that the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in
concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best
determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich, 579
F.2d 86, 91,
198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO usually must
evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold
words of the literature."). Of course, “‘[e]very patent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007