Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 4
Application No. 07/951,308
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 35, filed March 31, 1995) and
reply brief (Paper No. 37½, filed August 17, 1995) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we reverse this
rejection for reasons which follow.
At the outset, we note that the examiner must shoulder
the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the disclosure of the applied prior art.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007