Appeal No. 98-1474 Page 3
Application No. 08/579,385
The reference relied on in rejecting the claims follows:
Bollman et al. (Bollman) 5,289,297 Feb.
22, 1994.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bollman. Rather than repeat the arguments of the
appellant or examiner in 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 appellant and examiner. After considering the totality of
the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 3. 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007