Appeal No. 2000-2037
Application No. 08/810,055
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); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is established when
the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in
the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993)).
After review of the examiner’s rejection and the examiner’s
response to the appellants’ arguments (final rejection, Paper No.
17, pages 2 and 3, and the examiner’s answer, Paper No. 22, pages
3-6) and appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 8-15, and reply
brief at page 3), we are of the view that the examiner has not
made out a prima facie case in rejecting the claims on appeal
under either of the combinations suggested by the examiner.
Grosse-Wilde and Moorhead
Even if we give the examiner the benefit of the proper
combination of Grosse-Wilde and Moorhead, we do not find that the
combination meets the limitation of “first compressive pressure
applying means for exerting pressure on the first electrode set”
and “second compressive pressure applying means for exerting
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007