Appeal No. 2000-0948 Page 4
Application No. 08/511,341
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 24
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).
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
A dual wavelength surgical laser system for
performing laser surgery on living tissue with a minimum
amount of collateral tissue damage, said laser system
comprising:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007