Appeal No. 1999-2708 Page 7
Application No. 08/896,533
edge of a swinging shutter leaf toward an inner surface of an
insertion opening to cover a gap therebetween when the shutter
leaf is closed and a skirt extending from a free edge of a
swinging shutter leaf toward a free edge of another swinging
shutter leaf to cover a gap therebetween when the shutter
leaves are closed.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed,
the next inquiry is whether the subject matter is obvious.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "’A prima
facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings
from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art.’" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007