Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 10
Application No. 08/856,943
Because Tomura’s lug protrudes generally perpendicular to
its charging terminals and generally parallel to its recess,
we are not persuaded that the reference discloses the
limitations of a "peg section [that] protrudes from a wall of
the receiving compartment in an angled direction generally
towards the spring contact" or an "element on the cradle
member being angled towards a bottom of a housing receiving
area of the cradle member . . . .” Therefore, we reverse the
anticipation rejection of claim 22, of claim 29, and of claims
30 and 31, which depend from claim 29.
Turning to the obviousness rejection, 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
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007