Appeal No. 2001-1572
Application 08/939,569
interface which has the properties recited in the last clause of
the independent claims on appeal.
The examiner is also incorrect in relying on a per se
rule of obviousness that a change in size is not patentable. The
examiner should consider the specific recitations of a claim and
provide an evidentiary basis which supports the position that the
specific recited size would have been obvious over the applied
evidence. The examiner cannot simply find obviousness and seek
to shift the burden to appellants to show secondary
considerations of non-obviousness.
Since we do not sustain the rejection of any of the
independent claims on appeal, we also do not sustain the
rejection of any of the remaining claims which depend therefrom.
We note for the record, however, that the examiner’s reliance on
what is deemed well known in the art in rejecting the dependent
claims on appeal is insufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007