Appeal No. 2003-0514 Page 3
Application No. 09/820,147
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims
under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 13 to
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
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).
The independent claims on appeal
Claims 13, 14 and 17 read as follows:
13. A method of attaching a head rest guide tube to a seat back frame having
a substantially flat section having opposing sides with an aperture formed
therethrough, the method comprising:
(a) inserting the guide tube into the aperture; and
(b) swaging the guide tube over the flat section of the seat back frame,
whereby to secure the guide tube within the aperture.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007