Appeal No. 2006-0985
Application No. 09/766,696
an application under section 103, an examiner must show an unrebutted prima
facie case of obviousness. On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness. Id. (citing Rouffett, 149 F.3d at 1355, 47 USPQ2d at 1456).
Analysis
As noted above, the examiner is reading the case of power unit 50 including
the upper flat surface of the bottom wall as the bracket. Appellant argues that there
is no teaching of making a control device removable from the bracket as a unit as
required in the independent claims. The examiner has stated that the ability of the
motor to be removed is a function of the motor design and not of the support. Be
that as it may, it is still a claimed feature of the invention on appeal and all claim
features must be present or taught by the prior art to establish the prima facie
obviousness of the claims on appeal. Inasmuch as we agree with the appellant that
neither reference teaches a control device that can be removed as a unit from the
bracket base, we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s rejection on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013