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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007