Appeal No. 97-2457 Page 5
Application No. 08/366,376
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20-
22. Accordingly, we reverse.
Grouping of claims
The appellants state that for the appeal the claims
should be considered as two separate groups. The first group
comprises claims 1, 21, and 22. The second group comprises
claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20. The appellants
have further provided reasons why the claims of the groups are
believed to be separately patentable in accordance with 37
C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 1206.
Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. 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 having
ordinary skill in the art. If the examiner fails to establish
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007