Appeal No. 1998-1323
Application 08/252,861
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1-24. We are also of the view that the disclosure of
Cragun does fully meet the invention as recited in claim 25.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Takahashi, Buhro and
Cragun. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007