Ex parte HALE - Page 4

          Appeal No. 96-1604                                                          
          Application 08/272,906                                                      

               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                                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007