Appeal No. 2000-2129
Application No. 09/090,583
A patent may not be obtained if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 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) and In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976). If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and
will be overturned. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Among the many limitations found in the appealed claims concerning the geometry of the
horizontal and vertical links and their dimensions relative to each other is the requirement found in
independent claims 6 and 10 that “said vertical links hav[e] a pitch[2] which is approximately equal
to three times said second diameter[3] of said circular cross-section of said nose-parts of said vertical
links, plus or minus 5mm.”
2The pitch of the vertical links is designated “t1" in appellants’ Figure 4.
3The second diameter of the circular cross-section of the nose parts of the vertical links is
designated “d” in appellants’ Figure 3.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007