Appeal No. 2002-0022 Page 4
Application No. 09/161,071
No. 26, mailed May 2, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 25, filed March 16, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No.
28, filed July 2, 2001) 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, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under
appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 39 to 50 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is established
by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007