Appeal 2006-3282
Application 09/683,353
rejections itemized above, are anticipated by or rendered obvious over the
prior art.
The Appellant respectfully disagrees, and argues that the Examiner
has misread the teachings of the art and mistakenly applied them to the
claimed subject matter.
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims over the references as applied above.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
This application presents questions of anticipation and obviousness.
In examination before the USPTO, the Examiner bears the burden of
presenting a prima facie case for the obviousness,[ or anticipation,] of the
claimed subject matter. See In re Rinehart, 531 F2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143
(CCPA 1976).
The ultimate determination of whether an invention would have been
obvious is a legal conclusion based on underlying findings of fact. In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998 [50 USPQ2d 1614] (Fed. Cir. 1999).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts:
1. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102, Examiner has read the elements of
claims 1, 6, 8, 16 and 18 to 20 on the reference OMEGA®.
Appellant argues that the claims 1 and 16 call for a dual
temperature indicator stick assembly and apparatus, and the
OMEGA® reference shows a series of temperature indicator
sticks in a case. Although the weight to be accorded to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013