Appeal No. 2000-1514 Page 8
Application No. 09/038,450
of the chock path for any number of reasons, such as ease of
repair when a trailer is present."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-11) that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness since
there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the position of
Springer's power mechanism to be outboard of the outer edge of
the chock path. We agree.1
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 2
1In our view, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the limitation that the power mechanism is positioned
"outboard of said outer edge" as recited in claims 1-12 and 14
to 17, that is consistent with the specification (see page 15,
lines 1-12) is that the power mechanism is positioned further
from the centerline of the chock path than the outer edge of
the chock path in a direction away from the centerline of the
chock path toward the outer edge (i.e., the edge of the chock
path furthest from the centerline of the loading dock).
2Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007