Appeal No. 2001-0212 Page 4
Application No. 08/958,497
rejection of claims 8 to 13 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).
In the rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner
ascertained (answer, pp. 4-5) that Murray discloses the
claimed invention except that Murray's impeller is driven by
the drive shaft of a motor instead of "a magnetic drive rotor
coupled to a magnetic impeller." The examiner then determined
(answer, p. 5) that Bender teaches a magnetic drive rotor 20
coupled to a magnetic impeller 34 in a device which circulates
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007