Appeal No. 2000-0073
Application No. 08/883,716
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 to 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Brazdil ‘016 and Brazdil ‘588. (Answer, p. 3).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we will reverse § 103 rejection. We need to address only claim 1,
which is the sole independent claim.
It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under § 103 to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785,
787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). To that end, the examiner must show that some objective
teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally available in the art
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Pro-Mold
& Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007