Appeal No. 2004-1088 Page 4
Application No. 09/805,202
claims 1 to 5, 10, 12 and 56 to 82 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).
The obviousness rejection based on McWilliams and Weir
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 5, 10, 12 and 56 to 82 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams in view of Weir.
McWilliams' invention relates to mail bag handling apparatus, and more
particularly, to apparatus for transferring bagged mail between an end loading
highway vehicle and a loading dock. The bag handling apparatus has only one basic
conveyor frame and a loader head equipped with conveying means operating
longitudinally of the basic conveyor is mounted in a cantilever fashion on the conveyor
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007