Appeal No. 1997-2256
Application No. 08/427,706
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions as set forth by appellants and the examiner. As a
result of our review, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 6 through 11 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
103. Our reasoning 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); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The conclusion that
the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be
supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in
the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007