Ex parte CARLSON et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-1445                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/489,680                                                  


          toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and answer for the                  
          respective details thereof.                                                 


                                       OPINION                                        
               In deciding 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 appellants and examiner.  After considering the totality                
          of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in                  
          rejecting claims 9-11, 13-20, and 22-25.  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)).                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007