Appeal No. 2003-0421
Application No. 09/508,793
and the groove. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(when the PTO shows sound basis for
believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art
are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they
are not); and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433
(CCPA 1977)(where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a
functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing
novelty may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior
art, it possesses authority to require applicant to prove that
prior art does not possess this characteristic). We note that
appellants have not disclosed any criticality to the type of
“thin wire” used in their hinge, nor have they disclosed any
treatment to produce a “thin wire” different than that of the
prior art.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 6, and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007