Appeal No. 2000-1250
Application No. 08/662,077 Page 5
respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1-6 based on the
teachings of Ramstrom considered with Astmann. We make reference
to pages 3-7 of the answer for the examiner’s position.
Appellants assert (brief, pages 7 and 9) that the
combination is not proper because Ramstrom and Astmann are
directed to solving different problems, both from each other, and
from appellants’ invention. Appellants further assert (brief,
page 7) that even if combined, the combination would not result
in the claimed invention.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness
is established by presenting evidence that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of
the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA
1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007