Appeal No. 2001-1661 Page 5
Application No. 09/144,654
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 would have led one of ordinary skill in the art 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) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 22 to 24
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 22 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the rejection of claims 22 to 24 the examiner determined (answer, pp. 3-4) that it
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to (1) employ the glass wall of Pearson in front of the tennis practice and training aid
of Pfeilsticker in order to protect the mirror part of the tennis practice and training aid of
Pfeilsticker from damage, and (2) employ the ball rebounding net of Hogue in front of the
tennis practice and training aid of Pfeilsticker in order to protect the mirror part of the
tennis practice and training aid of Pfeilsticker from damage.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007