Appeal No. 2005-1407
Application No. 09/978,510
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Barry.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and agree with the examiner that
the invention recited in appellants’ claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention over the applied
reference. The evidence submitted by appellants has not
established unexpected results to overcome the prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together (brief,
page 3). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e.,
claim 1, the sole independent claim. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d
1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37
C.F.R. 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. To establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, there must be some suggestion, motivation, or
teaching in the references that would have led a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the references in a way that
would produce the claimed invention. See generally Pro-Mold v.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007