Appeal No. 1997-1981
Application No. 08/298,547
Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hartnett in view of Nakamura and Niehaus.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Dec. 23, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 12, filed Nov. 13, 1996) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must show an
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34
USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case of
obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to
a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007