Appeal No. 98-1449 Page 3
Application No. 08/297,122
and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 14, 1997) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claims 6 and 7. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007