Appeal No. 2006-1031
Application No. 09/774,278
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 when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires
that the prior art both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable
expectation of success to one reasonably skilled in the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,
493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We do not find the examiner has
established, on the evidence before us, that the microbubbles of θstensen remain in
liquid form throughout the performance of the imaging steps of the disclosed method, or
that the microbubbles of θstensen do not contain more than 10% gas at any phase of
the method in which the liquid microbubbles are used.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007