Appeal No. 2003-2046
Application 09/171,670
DISCUSSION
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness rests on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In order to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must
identify a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of
the cited references to achieve the claimed invention. In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir.
2000). In the present case, we find that the examiner has failed
to satisfy his burden of proof and, therefore, has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the
rejections are reversed for the reasons set forth in greater
detail below.
The invention is directed to a method for manufacturing
a composition comprising crushing tomatoes and apples, allowing
the mixture to stand and then filtering the mixture. Claim 1.
The filtered liquid may be used in dermatological formulations.
Appeal Brief, page 2.
It is the examiner’s position that Strobel teaches the
invention as claimed with the exception that “Strobel does not
explicitly teach mixing the crushed fruits and vegetables or the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007