Appeal No. 2007-0395 Page 8
Application No. 09/789,678
1 2. “The prima facie case is a procedural tool of patent examination,
2 allocating the burdens of going forward as between examiner and applicant.
3 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
4 1990). The term “ prima facie case” refers only to the initial examination
5 step. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
6 1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
7 1976). As discussed in In re Piasecki, the examiner bears the initial burden,
8 on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
9 case of unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward
10 with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
11 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
12
13 3. Claims are given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with
14 the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir.
15 1997).
16
17 4. “What the prior art teaches, whether it teaches away from the claimed
18 invention, and whether it motivates a combination of teachings from
19 different references are questions of fact.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
20 1199-1200, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
21
22 ANALYSIS
23 The central theme to Appellant’s contentions challenging examiner’s
24 establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art is that
25 the instant invention accomplishes a different objective than the one Walker
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013