Appeal No. 97-3298
Application No. 08/349,426
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bonfigli.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply 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
Briefs. We also have recognized that 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)). This is not to say, however, that the claimed
invention must expressly be suggested in any one or all of the
references, rather, the test for obviousness is what the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007