Appeal No. 96-3408
Application No. 08/194,904
filed November 20, 1995) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and claim,
to the applied prior art reference, 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 insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim
6. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 6 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
is established by presenting evidence that the applied prior art
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill
in the relevant art having the applied prior art before him to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007