Appeal No. 1998-1434 Page 5 Application No. 08/159,647 In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered the subject matter on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of the appellant and examiner. After considering the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, and 18 as obvious over Mincer alone and over Mincer in view of Holland. Accordingly, we reverse. We begin by noting the following principles from In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)). If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. 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 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007