Appeal No. 2002-1267 Page 4
Application No. 09/333,928
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).
In the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Spada in view of Focke (answer, pp. 3-4), the examiner (1) set forth the teachings of
both Spada and Focke; (2) ascertained2 that Spada does not disclose that his recesses
105 have a liner made of a different material, such as hardened steel; and
(3) concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art, at the
time of the invention, to include a hardened steel liner in the recesses 105 of Spada as
taught by Focke in order to reduce friction and retain the lightweight structure of the
turret.
2 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007