Appeal No. 2003-1278 Page 3
Application No. 09/577,701
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Muehllehner in view of Hilton, Persyk and Yamakawa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 10, mailed December 20, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed October 9, 2002) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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 1 to 8 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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007