Appeal No. 1999-0387 Page 15
Application No. 08/590,278
220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974). Thus, we sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to claims 9 and 19, the examiner has not established
that the limitations of their respective parent claims (i.e.,
claims 8 and 17) would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art. The examiner has not applied any evidence sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to 3
claims 9 and 19.
3In 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 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).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007