Appeal No. 2000-2118
Application No. 08/995,139
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Rosenberg, as shown in Figures 4-6 (also shown on the cover
page), teaches support surfaces on the back, the edge and the
side of the package (answer, page 3). With respect to Lee, the
Examiner points out that the reference is relied on only for
showing wrapped-around leads (id.).
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). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual 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).
Furthermore, the Examiner must produce a factual basis
supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be
common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with
the holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007