Appeal No. 97-3575
Application 08/380,815
the Amended 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. As a result of our review, we have determined that
the rejection should not be sustained. Our reasoning in
support of this conclusion follows.
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, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Independent claim 1 is directed to a cartridge for
conducting fluid through a microwave heating chamber. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007