Appeal No. 96-2653
Application No. 08/395,681
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and 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 2
respect to claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Before addressing the examiner's rejection based upon prior
art, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed subject
matter be fully understood. Analysis of whether a claim is
patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 begins with a
determination of the scope of the claim. The properly
interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art.
Claim interpretation must begin with the language of the claim
2In 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007