Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 21
Application No. 08/347,900
As aformentioned regarding the grouping of the claims,
claims 13-17 stand or fall with claim 12. Therefore, we find
that the references would have suggested the elements of claim
13-17. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-7 and
12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Next, we consider the
obviousness of claims 8-11 and 18-22.
Obviousness of Claims 8-11 and 18-22
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of claims
8-11 and 18-22 by recalling that in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the patent examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. A prima facie
case is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. If the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, an obviousness
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993). With this in mind, we analyze the appellant’s
arguments.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007