Appeal 2007-1908
Application 10/442,950
1 rotated, the pinion 15 is rotated while meshing with the rack 14
2 whereby the shifter 12 displaces six heads 2 toward the
3 controlling side A with the aid of the pusher 16.
4 (Seki, col. 4, ll. 5-20).
5 52. “[A] group of heads 2 tend to overrun under the effect of inertia
6 movement thereof but overruning is inhibited by means of the stopper
7 19 located forwardly of the foremost head.” (Seki, col. 4, ll. 24-27).
8 53. “By rotating DC motor 13 again, the residual heads 2 are
9 displaced to the next setting position as a group.” (Seki, col. 4,
10 ll. 35-37).
11
12 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
13 On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
14 has not established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of
15 the applied prior art. Appellant may sustain this burden by showing that,
16 where the Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the Examiner
17 failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that one having ordinary skill
18 in the art would have done what Appellant did. United States v. Adams, 383
19 U.S. 39, 52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-84 (1966); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
20 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); DyStar Textilfarben
21 GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d 1356,
22 1360-61, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The mere fact that all the
23 claimed elements or steps appear in the prior art is not per se sufficient to
24 establish that it would have been obvious to combine those elements.
25 Adams, 383 U.S. at 52; Smith Industries Medical Systems, Inc. v. Vital Signs,
26 Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013