Appeal No. 1998-0953
Application No. 08/467,084
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 31 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). Only if that
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence
or argument shift to the applicant. Id. If the examiner
fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is
improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In order to
establish the prima facie
obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations
must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka,
490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974).
We begin our review with independent claim 1. We note
that claim 1 calls for a tamper resistant envelope comprising,
inter alia, first and second panels, a first adhesive seal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007