Appeal No. 2004-0620 Page 3
Application No. 09/698,898
Claims 14 to 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Farnworth in view of Lin '558.
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. 14, mailed June 4, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 7, 2003) 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, 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 22
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 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007