Appeal No. 1996-4167 Page 4
Application No. 08/324,369
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).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal recite a filter-replacement device for an extruder
comprising, inter alia, a housing having an inlet and an outlet for flowing plastic
extrudate; first and second flow passages for the extrudate extending between the inlet
and the outlet; a start-up outlet bore communicating with the first flow passage; first and
second linear bores that extend through the first and second passages; first and second
cartridges, respectively accommodating replaceable first and second filters and adapted
to move back and forth inside a respective one of the first and second bores; the first
cartridge having a tap for diverting extrudate from the inlet to the outlet bore and being
movable between (1) a start-up position in which, extrudate flow to the first filter is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007