Appeal No. 2000-0965
Application No. 08/927,465
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, Appellants’ arguments in the Brief assert
a failure of the Examiner to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness since proper motivation for the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Fournier and Janik has not been
established. In addition, Appellants assert that, even if the
references were combined, the resultant structure would not
meet the specific requirements of claim 1.
After careful review of the applied Fournier and Janik
references in light of the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellants’ arguments as set forth in the
Briefs. In our view, the Examiner has combined the general
computer wearability teachings of Janik with the measurement
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007