Appeal No. 2000-0226 Page 5
Application No. 08/694,200
evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion
that the evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 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).
The two independent claims on appeal read as follows:
1. A method of sealing the fire box of a fireplace
wherein a natural draft of air flows into said fire box
through a frontal opening and exits through an exhaust
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007