Appeal No. 2004-0588
Application No. 09/387,174
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lin in view of Burney.
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. 12, mailed Sep. 9, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed Jul. 7, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No.13, filed Oct. 27, 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.
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
claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007