Appeal No. 96-3062
Application 08/239,029
Claims 36 through 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Jourdain and Bailey.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that
neither of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasons for
this decision follow.
Independent claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious in view of the teachings of Bloch and Jourdain.
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) and In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). This is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007