Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of
the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See Id. and In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner has not
established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of the references.
Applicant may sustain its burden by showing that where the Examiner relies on a
combination of disclosures, the Examiner failed to provide sufficient reasons to
show that one having ordinary skill in the art would have done what Applicant did.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No. 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007);
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-84 (1966); DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d 1356,
1360-61, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-
88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3-7, 12, 13, AND 15-19 UNDER
35 U.S.C. §102(b) AS ANTICIPATED BY STOBB
Appellants argue claims 1, 5, 7, 12, 15, and 17 as a group. As such, we
select claim 1 as a representative claim, and the remaining claims of the group will
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Claim 1, directed to a folding apparatus, requires a cutting device; at least
one rotating band shaped conveying element passed around a rotating anvil
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013