Appeal No. 2001-0158 Page 3
Application No. 08/873,250
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is a slicing center which includes a positioning subgroup
unit, a slicing subgroup unit and a processing subgroup unit. Each of the subgroups
includes a “first means” for carrying out the function of the subgroup, and a “second
means” for interconnecting the first means in a physically operative manner so as to
form a subgroup unit. The slicing center also includes an additional “interconnecting
means for interconnecting” the positioning, slicing and processing subgroup units in a
physically operative hierarchically organized assembly. This additional interconnecting
means includes means for storing, means for manipulating, and means for transporting
the slices.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We initially note
that 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). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007