Appeal No. 2003-1284 Page 3
Application No. 09/887,179
OPINION
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have selected claim 6 as the
representative claim from the appellant's grouping of claims 6 to 11 to decide the
appeal on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See page 2 of the appellant's brief.
Claim 6 reads as follows:
A folding multi-tool, comprising:
(a) a pair of channel-shaped handles;
(b) a pliers;
(c) a spoke wrench; and
(d) a bicycle chain tool,
wherein the pliers, the spoke wrench, and the bicycle chain tool
pivot into the channel-shaped handles.
In reaching our decision on the obviousness issue under 35 U.S.C. § 103 raised
in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007