Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
having island block portions are in fact subjected to the same
forces and stresses. The examiner did not do so. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)(explaining that the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness rests on the examiner).
For these reasons, we hold that the examiner has not made
out a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
IV. Rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
Combined Teachings of Yamaguchi, Benson, and JP '723
As in Rejection III, the examiner relies on Benson to
account for the particular form of the first and second sipes as
recited in appealed claim 10. For the reasons discussed above,
however, we determine that the evidence in this record is
insufficient to support a conclusion that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to combine Yamaguchi and Benson
in the manner as suggested by the examiner.
JP '723 does not make up for the differences between
Yamaguchi and appealed claim 10, because JP '723 does not teach
sipes having the forms recited in appealed claim 10. (Figure
2.)
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007