Ex parte GASKILL - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-2693                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/569,976                                                  


                                       OPINION                                        
               In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter              
          on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.                       
          Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of               
          the appellant and examiner.  After considering the totality of              
          the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in                     
          rejecting claims 1 and 15-17.  Accordingly, we reverse.                     


               We begin by noting the following principles from                       
          In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.              
          Cir. 1993).                                                                 
               In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the                         
               examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a                      
               prima facie case of obviousness.  In re Oetiker, 977                   
               F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.                       
               1992)....  "A prima facie case of obviousness is                       
               established when the teachings from the prior art                      
               itself would appear to have suggested the claimed                      
               subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the                    
               art."  In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d                        
               1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,                   
               531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).                   

          With these principles and finding in mind, we consider the                  
          examiner's rejection and appellant's argument.                              










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

Last modified: November 3, 2007