Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 10
Application No. 08/705,592
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 6,
7, 9 to 17 and 19 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stacy.
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).
All the claims under appeal recite wood fragments within
a mesh-type container. Stacy teaches only the use of straw
within a mesh-type container. Thus, Stacy does not teach or
suggest the wood fragments as set forth in each of the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007