Appeal No. 1997-1230
Application 08/274,807
(Paper No. 10, mailed May 30, 1996).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in
the main brief (Paper No. 9, filed April 5, 1996) and the
second reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed September 17, 1996).3
Opinion
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "A prima facie
case of obviousness 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." In
re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143
(CCPA 1976)). If the examiner fails to establish a prima
3Appellants’ first reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
August 2, 1996) has not been entered. See the examiner’s
advisory letter (Paper No. 12, mailed August 23, 1996).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007