Appeal No. 96-0298
Application 07/920,230
The Rejections
Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over any one of EPA,
Frederick (A), Frederick (B) in view of Young.
Claims 9-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being patentable over any one of EPA,
Frederick (A), Frederick (B) in view of Young, and further in view of Hawley.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse both of the examiner's rejections.
The examiner has failed to establish that the subject matter encompassed by appealed claims
1-32 is prima facie obvious over the prior art applied in each of the aforementioned rejections. It is
well settled that the examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). This burden can be satisfied when the examiner
provides objective evidence that some teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge
generally available, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007