Ex Parte MATTHIES et al - Page 6



          Appeal No. 2002-0328                                                        
          Application No. 09/250,324                                                  
          and cathode electrodes and a rectangular patterned pixel                    
          structure (answer, page 10).  The Examiner further equates the              
          connecting vias extending through the edges of the printed                  
          circuit board (PCB) (col. 5, line 54 through col. 6, line 3 and             
          Figure 3) as the claimed vias extending through the pixel                   
          structure (id.).                                                            
               As a general proposition, 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) and In re Fine,           
          837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  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); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780,              
          1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley               
          Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988);           
          Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d            
          281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985).  In considering the           
          question of the obviousness of the claimed invention in view of             
          the prior art relied upon, the Examiner is expected to make the             
          factual determination set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383            
                                          6                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007