Appeal No. 2001-1284 Page 10
Application No. 08/792,765
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 all the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
determined (answer, pp. 4-6) that Cooper does not disclose his
apparatus being made from insulating foam and that in view of
either Augur's cooler apparatus made of insulating foam or
Buddrus' cooler apparatus made of insulating foam it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to make Cooper's apparatus from
insulating foam.
The appellant argues throughout the briefs that the applied
prior art would not have suggested making Cooper's apparatus from
insulating foam. We agree. In our view, the only suggestion for
making Cooper's apparatus from insulating foam stems from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007