Appeal No. 1998-1045
Application 08/482,674
as applied above to claim 38, and further in view of
Takahashi.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and the
response to the arguments presented by appellant appear in the
final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed July 30, 1996) and the
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed April 7, 1997), while the
complete statement of appellant’s arguments can be found in
the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 13 and 15, filed January
13, 1997 and June 11, 1997, respectively).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we conclude that the rejections
cannot be sustained.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007