Appeal No. 1997-2252
Application No. 08/225,965 Page 3
November 12, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed March 24,
1997) 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. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is
our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
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, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness
is established by presenting evidence that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of
the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007