Appeal No. 2001-1025 Page 6
Application No. 09/191,974
identification … of individual components of claimed limitations. Rather
particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no
knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for
combination in the manner claimed.” Ecolochem Inc. v. Southern California
Edison, 227, F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075 (CAFC 2000).
In our opinion, the examiner has failed to provide the evidence necessary
to support a prima facie case of obviousness. If the examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claims 10-13 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Hruby or Hadley in view of Takata and Hubaud.
Having determined that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness, we find it unnecessary to discuss appellants’ “Declaration
under Rule 132” (see Brief, page 7) or the evidence of unexpected results
presented in appellants’ specification (see id.).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007