Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
label holder (30) on the display hook of Thalenfeld is a
“shelf,” is unreasonable. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 13 through 20, 26 through
28 and 54 through 56 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Having arrived at the conclusion that the evidence
of obviousness as applied by the examiner in the rejection of
claims 40 through 49, 52 and 53 on appeal is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we also recognize
that evidence of secondary considerations, such as that
presented by appellant in this application must be considered
and weighed in route to a determination of
obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we consider anew the issue of obviousness with
regard to claims 40 through 49, 52 and 53 on appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 103, carefully evaluating and weighing both the
reference evidence relied upon by the examiner and the
objective evidence of nonobviousness provided by appellant.
See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538,
218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Piasecki, 745
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007