Ex Parte Graham et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2005-0709                                                        
          Application No. 09/767,197                                                  

                                       OPINION                                        
               At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’            
          grouping of the claims at page 2 of the principal brief, all                
          claims will stand or fall together.                                         
               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).  To reach a conclusion of                      
          obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual                
          basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown             
          to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration.  Our                
          reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a              
          prima facie case.  In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223              
          USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  The examiner may satisfy                
          his/her burden only by showing some objective teaching in the               
          prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of                   
          ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine              
          the relevant teachings of the references.  In re Fine, 837 F.2d             
          1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                           
               It is the examiner’s contention that Smith teaches the                 
          instant claimed subject matter (for the reasons enunciated at               
          page 4 of the answer) but for an explicit disclosure that the               
                                         -3-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007