Appeal No. 1999-2029 Page 3
Application No. 08/431,360
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed October 24, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10,
filed October 6, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed
December 29, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007