Appeal No. 96-4007
Application No. 08/294,769
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
sufficient to establish a case of obviousness only with respect
to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 16 and 17. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7 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 reference
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill
in the relevant art having the references before him to make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007