Appeal No. 2001-0114
Application 09/240,712
piece in an article which has been formerly formed into two
pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
The Examiner relies on Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S.
164 (1893). See pages 3 and 4, of the Examiner’s final rejection.
In the Examiner’s answer, the Examiner maintains that Howard v.
Detroit Stove Works holds that it is within one of design choice
to form one piece of article which has formerly been formed into
two pieces and putting them together involves only routine skill
in the art. See pages 3 and 4 of the Examiner’s answer.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007