Ex parte CLEMENTS - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2000-0788                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 09/017,618                                                  


                                       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 references, 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 1 to 20 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                
          have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the                    
          relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed               
          invention.  See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d                   







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007