Appeal No. 1997-2133
Application 08/172,507
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 20, mailed December 6, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 18, filed September 18, 1996) for the
appellant’s arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
DECISION ON APPEAL
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Zsebo taken
with Lee, Audhya and Morimoto.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007