Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 12
Application No. 08/321,255
217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, the appellants do not
argue separately the patentability of claims 4-6, which depend
from claim 1. Thus, these claims fall with claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 4-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to the other claims, we recall 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 consider
the obviousness of claims 2 and 3, claims 7-12, and claims 13-
21 seriatim.
Obviousness of Claims 2 and 3
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007