Appeal No. 95-3943
Application 08/050,318
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions
advanced by the appellant and by 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 all claims on
appeal. 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, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007