Appeal No. 96-1604
Application 08/272,906
OPINION
At the outset, we note that both the appellant and the
examiner agree that claims 6 through 9 and 22 stand or fall
together and claims 13, 14 and 23 stand or fall together.2
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
Note page 3 of the appellant's brief and page 2 of the examiner's2
answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007