Appeal No. 1995-2781
Application No. 07/804,868
double patenting over claims 1, 4-16, 18-28 and 31-40 of U.S.
Patent 5,360,695 (Texter) in view of Chari.
DISCUSSION
A. The prior art rejections
It is well established that the Examiner has the initial
burden under § 103 to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). To that end,
the Examiner must show that some objective teaching or
suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally
available in the art would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Pro-Mold & Tool
Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37
USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We have carefully
reviewed the specification, claims and applied references,
including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. We reverse the Examiner’s § 103
rejections.
Independent claims 1 and 33 are reproduced below:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007