Appeal No. 97-3295
Application No. 08/424,759
(5) Claims 25-27 on the basis of Spann, Groenewald and
Oldfield.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Brief. As a result of our review, we have determined that
none of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasoning is
based upon the guidance from our reviewing court that in a
rejection 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)), which 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)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007