Appeal No. 2000-1871 Page 3
Application No. 08/907,398
mailed April 26, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11,
filed February 8, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 3, filed
May 8, 2000) 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.
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 when
the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In considering the question of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007