Ex Parte COLE - Page 6




          Appeal No. 2000-1887                                                         
          Application No. 08/853,075                                                   


          coefficient samples are being selective for allocating and                   
          storing into element 60" (answer, page 11).                                  
               As a general proposition, 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) and In re Fine,            
          837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  A                
          prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings            
          of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the                   
          claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.  See             
          In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.               
          1993); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780,               
          1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley                
          Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988);            
          Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d             
          281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985).  In considering the            
          question of the obviousness of the claimed invention in view of              
          the prior art relied upon, the Examiner is expected to make the              
          factual determination set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383             
          U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why            
          one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been               
          led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to            

                                          6                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007