Ex parte GOLDENBERG - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-2043                                                          
          Application 07/990,514                                                      


          brief (Paper No. 15, filed April 17, 1995) for the appellant's              
          arguments thereagainst.                                                     

                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     




          respective positions articulated by the appellant and the                   
          examiner.  Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it                
          is                                                                          
          our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is                 
          insufficient to establish a case of obviousness with respect                
          to claims 1 through 9.  Accordingly, we will not sustain the                
          examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C.                 
          § 103.  Our reasoning for this determination follows.                       
               In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner                
          bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of                
          obviousness.  See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28                    
          USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  A prima facie case of                  

                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007