Appeal 2006-2965
Application 10/320,628
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only
if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with
evidence or argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445,
24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at
788. Thus, the Examiner must not only assure that the requisite findings
are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the Examiner’s
conclusion.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner properly relied upon Ohshita’s teachings to cure the
deficiencies of AAPA. Particularly, the Examiner properly found that
Ohshita’s teaching of using a longitudinal rod to form a slack corresponds to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013