Appeal No. 2004-1312 Page 5
Application No. 08/710,554
surface. While Maeda does provide a space or gap 9 between the plate 6 and the pipe
7 for lumps 10 of adhesive, the space or gap 9 does not constitute a depression in the
plate 6 for the reasons set forth by the appellant in the brief (pp. 6-7) and reply brief (pp.
2-5).
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 the teachings of the applied prior art would
appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the applied prior
art before him to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
In this rejection, the examiner has not set forth any rationale as to why it would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified Maeda's plate 6 to include a flat adhesive depression
containing an adhesive means to provide an adhesive surface substantially flush with
the contact surface. As such, the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007