Appeal No. 2000-1410
Application No. 09/021,667
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). 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). Furthermore,
"[t]hat knowledge can not come from the applicant's invention
itself." Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447, 24 USPQ2d at 1446. As the
examiner has pointed to no teaching, suggestion, or implication
in the prior art that would have led the skilled artisan to
modify Tomotoshi in the manner proposed by the examiner, no prima
facie case of obviousness has been established. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007