Appeal No. 1997-0956
Application No. 08/313,488
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
the
examiner and appellants. This evaluation leads us to conclude
that the examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well founded for
the reasons well articulated by appellants at pages 3-11 of
the Brief. We only add that the examiner needs to carry his
burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness regarding
each
and every limitation recited in the claims on appeal before he
can require appellants to provide rebuttal evidence, such as a
showing of unexpected results. See, e.g., In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed by appellants at pages
3 through 11 of the Brief, and the reason indicated above, we
reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting all of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007