Appeal No. 2000-2262
Application No. 08/990,996
having multiple teeth to economize the required device
manufacturing operations. The Examiner must not only make
requisite findings, based on the evidence of record, but must
also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to
support the conclusion of obviousness. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d
1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Given the
lack of supporting evidence presented by the Examiner, it is our
opinion that any suggestion to modify the single tooth piercing
connector tabs of Chadbourne to provide tabs with multiple teeth
could only come from Appellant’s own disclosure, and not from any
disclosure in the prior art references themselves.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art,
it is our opinion that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to appealed independent
claims 11 and 21. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007