Appeal No. 1997-1034
Application No. 08/279,135
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji and Klein in view of Harari. Claims 4
and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinose and
Klein in view of Harari.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Oct. 25, 1996) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed May 28, 1996) 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. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an Examiner must show an
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34
U.S.P.Q. 2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case
of obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled
to a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1443,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007