Appeal No. 1997-0229
Application No. 08/039,260
The ground of rejection presented for our review in this
appeal is as follows:
Claims 11 through 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Maxham ‘599, Maxham ‘258, and Bauman.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and the
appellants. Our review leads us to conclude that the applied
prior art references do not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we reverse.
OPINION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner carries the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-87
(Fed. Cir. 1984). As part of meeting this initial burden, the
examiner must determine whether the differences between the
subject matter of the claims and the prior art “are such that
the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007