Appeal No. 2004-0116 Page 4
Application No. 09/966,307
the examiner's rejection of claims 160 to 173 and 194 to 204 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).
Claim 160, the only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A packaging system, comprising:
a packaging material supply device for supplying a packaging material;
a packaging system controller in communication with the packaging
material supply device, the packaging system controller including a memory
having packaging instructions related to at least one part to be packaged, the
packaging instructions including at least one instruction for directing the
packaging material supply device to provide packaging material for the at least
one part to be packaged; and
an output device connected to the controller to provide at least one of an
audible and a visual output of at least one of the packaging instructions in
coordinated sequence with the at least one of the packaging instructions for
directing the packaging material supply device.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007