Appeal No. 2000-1978 Page 12
Application No. 08/898,905
The obviousness rejections based upon Takemoto
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 18, 24
to 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Takemoto.
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 the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references
before him to make the proposed combination or other
modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173
USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that
the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be
supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in
the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual
to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007