Appeal No. 1997-1201
Application No. 08/200,616
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chemaly, Spigarelli and
Howell in view of Frazee.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed May 27, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed
April 8, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed August 2, 1996) 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 make the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 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). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007