Appeal No. 97-3453 Page 5
Application No. 08/475,374
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the appellants’
and examiner’s arguments. After considering the record before
us, it is our view that the evidence and level of skill in the
art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
invention of claims 2, 5, and 11-15. We sustain the
obviousness- type double patenting rejection of claim 15.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Obviousness Rejections
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007