Appeal No. 2000-0747
Application No. 08/872,657
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, reference is
1
made to the briefs and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18
through 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ 1443, 1444 (Fed Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that
some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at
1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and consideration of all the
pertinent evidence and arguments. "In reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal,
the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.". In re Oetiker, 977
1Appellant filed an appeal brief on June 7, 1999. Appellant filed a reply brief on August 26, 1999.
The Examiner mailed an Office Communication on November 18, 1999 stating that the reply brief had been
entered and considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007