Appeal No. 2003-1657 Page 4
Application No. 09/554,319
claims 2 to 5, 7 to 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 to 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 35 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).
In the two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal, the
examiner concluded (non-final Office action, pp. 3 and 5) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify
the method and apparatus of the Admitted Prior Art with an indexing or rotating cutting
edge as taught by either Bailey to avoid the stoppage of operation to change or replace
the dull cutting edge or Rescigno to present a fresh portion of cutting edge for cutting
and to avoid the slippage of the insert.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007