Appeal No. 1997-0551
Application 08/157,429
well settled that every claim limitation must be considered in
determining patentability. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260,
1262-63, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974).
In the absence of sufficient factual evidence or
scientific rationale on the part of the examiner to establish
why and how a skilled artisan would have arrived at
appellants’ process from the applied references’ teachings as
discussed above, we find that the examiner has failed to meet
the initial burden of establishing the prima facie obviousness
of the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse
the examiner*s rejection.
Since we reverse for the lack of the presentation of
a prima facie case of obviousness by the examiner, we need not
reach the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence in the
specification as allegedly demonstrating unexpected results.
See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007