Appeal No. 95-4806
Application No. 08/155,730
THE REJECTION2
Claims 47-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lerner in view of Benoit.
The rejection is 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.
In evaluating the examiner’s rejection, the basic
guidance provided by our reviewing court is that in rejections
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.
2A double patenting rejection was overcome by the filing
of a terminal disclaimer (Paper No. 6), and a second rejection
under Section 103 was withdrawn (Paper No. 12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007