Appeal No. 1997-2512 Application No. 08/118,905 penetrating the tube at its upper section to release the material to the mucosal membrane of the animal,” as recited in appealed claim 12. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 We next consider the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Frenkel and Whittaker, or over the combined teachings of Frenkel and Cassou. According to the examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ either [sic] the tube of Whittaker et al [or Cassou] to dispense the vaccine of Frenkel et al. because the art teaches that tube shaped devices are useful for buccal delivery of medicaments.” See page 3 of the Answer. We disagree. The initial burden of establishing a prima facie case to deny patentability to a claimed invention rests upon the examiner. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In carrying out this burden, the examiner must consider each and every limitation. In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974). Frenkel discloses the oral administration of Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) to cats. In particular, Frenkel states: 10Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007