Appeal No. 2001-2201
Application .09/065, 997
the baffle in front of the detecting pinhole, but rather both of
the references disclose the baffle located behind the pinhole.
See Appeal Brief, page 4, lines 12 through 16. Additionally,
Appellant asserts that there is no motivation or suggestion to
move the baffles from the position taught in Kino and Tanaami to
the position claimed by Appellant since Kino and Tanaami are
directed to a different problem that results in the baffle on the
wrong side of the pinhole. See Appeal Brief, page 5, line 10
through 12 and 16 through 20.
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, 87 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007