Appeal No. 1999-2539 Page 5
Application No. 08/328,895
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
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 method claims on appeal include the step of
"providing an inductance device including an induction coil,
the induction coil comprising at least one conductor having
opposite ends adapted for connection to an electrical power
source and at least one turn forming a coil intermediate the
ends." Similarly, all the apparatus claims on appeal include
the limitation "induction means including an induction coil
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007