Appeal No. 2003-0067
Application No. 09/713,480
Smith 77,774 May 12, 1868
Woolfe 2,765,572 Oct. 10, 1952
Dudeck 4,713,907 Dec. 22, 1987
Robertaccio 4,794,720 Jan. 3, 1989
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before us for review:
(1) Claim 10, rejected as being unpatentable over Robertaccio in view of Dudeck;
(2) Claim 11, rejected as being unpatentable over Robertaccio;
(3) Claims 12-14, rejected as being unpatentable over Robertaccio in view of Woolfe; and
(4) Claim 15, rejected as being unpatentable over Robertaccio in view of Smith.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12) and to the examiner’s final rejection
and answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 13) for the respective positions of appellant and the examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
Discussion
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,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007