Appeal No. 2001-1530
Application No. 08/981,676
contacts are a pattern of parallel contact lines located on the circuit board and not on
the key. While we agree with the examiner that the teachings of Strauch are very close
to the claimed invention, we do not find that Strauch teaches the main and edge
contacts on the key as recited in independent claims 10, 11 and 12. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10-12 and their dependent claims 3-5,
14-16, and 18-23.
35 USC § 103
To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must
show an unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel,
51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the
absence of a proper prima facie case of obviousness, an applicant who
complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to a patent. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting
the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here,
we disagree with the examiner’s rejection and find that appellant has shown error in the
rejection of dependent claims 6 and 9 since the examiner has not remedied the noted
deficiency in Strauch nor has the examiner provided a convincing line of reasoning why
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Strauch to
have the main and edge contacts on the key. Therefore, we find that appellant has
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007