Appeal No. 2000-1475 Page 6
Application No. 08/844,016
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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 either a prima facie case of
anticipation with respect to claims 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 or a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 5 to
10. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claims 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or the
examiner's rejection of claims 5 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Our reasoning for this determination follows.
The anticipation rejection
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of anticipation. See In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450,
166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). Only if that burden is met,
does the burden of going forward shift to the appellants. Id.
A prima facie case of anticipation is established if each and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007