Appeal No. 2001-0099
Application No. 09/042,431
arrangement on the Mesenhöller ratchet handle shank 1 to
provide a more secure locking of the slider 15 and pin 14 in
the position shown in Figure 5.
In light of the above, we are satisfied that the combined
teachings of Mesenhöller and either Henson or Packer are
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
the subject matter of claim 21.
Having concluded, for the reasons discussed above, that
the teachings of the applied references are sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject 3
matter of claim 21, we recognize that evidence of secondary
considerations, such as the declaration of David Brekke
presented by the appellants in this application, must be
considered en route to an ultimate determination of
obviousness or nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3Like the Court in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992), we recognize that the concept of a "prima facie" case
of obviousness is a procedural tool of patent examination which allocates the
burdens of going forward as between the examiner and the appellants, and that
the determinative issue regarding patentability in this, and any case based on
obviousness, is whether the record as a whole, by a preponderance of the
evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument and secondary
evidence, supports the legal conclusion that the invention claimed would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007