Appeal No. 1999-0946
Application No. 08/693,641
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking at page 3 of the brief, we note that appellant has indicated that claims 1 to
5 stand together, and that independent claim 6 is separately patentable, as is dependent
claim 7. Thus, we focus our discussions below on independent claims 1 and 6, as well as
on dependent claim 7. Dependent claims 2-5 will stand or fall with independent claim 1.
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.
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 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 prima facie obvious must be supported by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007