Appeal No. 1999-2259
Application 08/711,614
differs from the claimed busway housing having a duct top,
duct bottom, and duct sides.
Because Rinderer discloses no teaching of a surge clamp
or busway housing, Rinderer cannot anticipate Appellant’s
claim 1. Claim 4, lacking separate argument, stands or falls
with independent claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We turn now to analyze the obviousness rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki and
Meyers, 749 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed Cir.
1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden only by showing
some objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598(Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007