Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Feb. 25, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Dec. 9, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 16, filed Apr. 30, 2003) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to group all the claims as
standing or falling together. (See brief at page 4.) Therefore, we will address
appellants’ arguments with respect to the sole independent claim 9.
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 the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007