Ex Parte Scott - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2005-0254                                                          Page 3              
             Application No. 10/197,012                                                                        



                                                  OPINION                                                      
                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to             
             the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied patent to Murison, and to the            
             respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  Upon evaluation of           
             all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the                 
             examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to           
             the claims under appeal.  Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of            
             claims 1 to 3 and 6 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 applied prior art 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).  Even when                           
             obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a                
             suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.  See In re Kotzab,            
             217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).                                    







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007