Appeal No. 2005-2515
Application No. 09/911,532
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.
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered. We deem such arguments to be waived by appellant
[see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) effective September 13, 2004 replacing 37 CFR §
1.192(a)]. We note that appellants have elected to group ALL claims as standing or
falling together at page 3 of the Brief. Therefore, we select independent claim 30 and
address appellants’ arguments thereto.
35 U.S.C. § 103
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007