Appeal No. 1998-3003 Page 13
Application No. 08/589,621
Since all the limitations of claims 7 and 8 are not
disclosed in Fuentes for the reasons set forth above, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 7 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.8
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 2 through 6.
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
8The examiner should consider whether or not the subject
matter of claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Fuentes and other prior art that establishes
that the subject matter of claims 7 and 8 would have been
obvious.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007