Appeal No. 2003-0428
Application 09/116,564
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs1 and
the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and the Examiner for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 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 USPQ2d 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
1
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on July 1, 2002.
Appellant filed a reply brief on November 13, 2002. The Examiner
mailed out an office communication on December 2, 2002 stating
that the reply brief has been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007