Ex Parte RING - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2005-0354                                                                              
             Application No. 09/399,412                                                                        


                                                  OPINION                                                      
                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to             
             appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the             
             respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence of              
             our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                              


                   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 reference teachings would appear to be                
             sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to      
             make the proposed combination or other modification.  See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d                 
             1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  Furthermore, the conclusion that the                  
             claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as                   
             shown by  some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available            
             to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual 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).  Rejections based on     §             
             103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being interpreted without hindsight             
             reconstruction of the invention from the prior art.  The examiner may not, because of             

                                                      4                                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007