Appeal No. 2000-0433
Application 08/741,070
unpatentable over Korgel in view of Doyle.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting view points
advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding the
above noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 21, mailed August 20, 1999) for the
examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellants’ Brief (Paper No. 20, filed June 11,
1999) and the appellants’ Reply Brief (Paper No. 23, filed
October 25, 1999) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on 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
determination which follows.
All of the examiner’s rejections are made pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 103. We initially note that the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007