Appeal No. 2006-2268
Application No. 10/468,448
choosing, of a combination of ingredients to meet the present
claims (See discussion of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection,
Answer, p. 5). As such, Bremser ‘502 does not disclose the
same invention as described by the present claims within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we determine that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation
with respect to the subject matter of claims 1 to 14, 16 to 21
and 23 to 27.
Now turning to the Examiner’s rejection under Section 103.
In making a determination that an invention is obvious, the
Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). To establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, several basic criteria must be met. There must be
some suggestion or motivation, either in the reference or
references themselves or in the knowledge generally available
to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or
to combine the reference teachings. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1594, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In addition, all
of the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the
prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85, 180 USPQ 580,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007