Appeal No. 1998-1533 Page 4
Application No. 08/411,202
filed March 26, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
September 5, 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A 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 before him to make the proposed
combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore,
the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is obvious must
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007