Appeal No. 1998-3380
Application 08/542,591
103 over Crowder, Kogure and Seigel, while claim 12 stands
rejected over Crowder, Kogure, Seigel and Warren.
Rather than repeat in toto the positions and the
arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we make reference to
the briefs and the answer for their respective positions.2
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner. We have likewise, reviewed Appellants' arguments
against the rejections as set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition
that in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
an Examiner is under a burden to make out a prima facie case
of obviousness. If that burden is met, the burden of going
forward then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness, is
then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
2A reply brief was filed as Paper No. 14, which was
entered by the Examiner, without further response, see Paper
No. 15.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007