Appeal No. 1998-1880
Application No. 08/423,865
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Cf. In re Papesch, 50 CCPA 1276, 315 F.2d 381,
137 USPQ 43 (1963).”
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness rests on
the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). For the reasons set forth supra, the examiner failed to provide the
evidence necessary to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Where the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hamilton.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007