Ex parte CHRISTENSON - Page 5




          Appeal No. 2000-0006                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/868,480                                                  


          the brief (filed March 12, 1999) and reply brief (filed May 6,              
          1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                           


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective                     
          positions articulated by the appellant 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                 
          the claims under appeal.  Accordingly, we will not sustain the              
          examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 15, 26, 31 to 33,               
          36, 39, 40 and 46 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 would                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007