Appeal No. 2002-1839 Page 6
Application No. 09/199,751
construction as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 has been incorporated in the horn speaker. . . ."
Col. 3, ll. 21-25. Although the embodiment includes "speaker units 10 to 18," col. 4,
l. 13, the examiner fails to show that any of the speaker units is mounted partway along
the horn so that it is downstream from the throat thereof. To the contrary, the reference
teaches that the "speaker units 10, 12, . . . are intensively arranged behind . . . the
sounding horn 30. . . ." Id. at ll. 21-22 (emphasis added). The absence of such a
showing "negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d
1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we reverse the anticipation
rejection of claim 1 and of claims 3-9, which depend therefrom.
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007