Appeal No. 1998-2383 Page 4
Application No. 08/116,355
7. Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holappa in
view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson and the British reference.
8. Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holappa in
view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson, the British reference and Piccini.
9. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holappa in
view of Chellis, Richardson and Piccini.
Reference is made to the brief and first reply brief (Papers No. 20 and 23) and the
answer (Paper No. 21) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
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.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
having the references before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007