Ex Parte KNIGHT et al - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2003-1155                                                                     Page 5                 
              Application No. 08/821,995                                                                                      


              No. 25, mailed January 13, 2003).  As a consequence of our review, we will not sustain                          
              the rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons that follow.                             


                      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 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).                                                                


                      The applied prior art (i.e., Malott and Di Palma) does not teach or suggest the                         
              use of a 12-24 volt DC motor as recited in claims 4 and 11.  While the examiner has                             
              concluded that the use of a 12-24 volt DC motor as recited in claims 4 and 11 would                             
              have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill                          
              in the art, the examiner has not cited any evidence to support such conclusion as                               
              requested by the appellants.3  When an applicant seasonably challenges a factual                                

                      3  Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a reference may flow from the prior      
              art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the       
              nature of the problem to be solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568,        
              1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73        
              F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996), although            
              "the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the pertinent references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d       
              1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  The range of sources available, however, does not           
              diminish the requirement for actual evidence.  A broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of        
                                                                                                   (continued...)             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007