Appeal No. 2005-0326 Page 4
Application No. 10/081,376
the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 to 13, 20 to 22 and 26 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).
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
A reinforcing bar connection for joining two reinforcing bars end-to end for
use in reinforced concrete construction, comprising:
a sleeve, and
spring finger washers mounted in said sleeve,
wherein the washers each have a flexible inner edge adapted to expand
around reinforcing bar ends projecting into each end of said sleeve and to bite
into and grip the bar ends to prevent withdrawal.
In the rejection of claim 1 (answer, pp. 4-6) the examiner (1) set forth the
pertinent teachings of Schade and Dobell; (2) ascertained that Schade does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007