Appeal No. 96-2623
Application No. 08/240,095
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 27, filed November 24, 1995) and reply brief
(Paper No. 29, filed February 21, 1996) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is
our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
sufficient to establish a case of obviousness only with respect
to claims 1 and 4. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. 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). A prima facie case of obviousness
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007