Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed
January 26, 1996) and the examiner's response to appellants'
reply brief (Paper No. 19, mailed June 24, 1996) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed July 28, 1995) and
reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed March 29, 1996) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
CLAIMS 21 THROUGH 32 AND 34 THROUGH 36
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 21
through 32 and 34 through 36 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. 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007