Appeal No. 1998-1895 Page 5
Application No. 08/425,990
further in view of Carnahan or AAPA even further in view of
Toriu. Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellant or
examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the brief 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 1-6,
8-10, 12-19, 26-33, and 79-86. 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007