Appeal No. 1998-2035
Application 08/458,783
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, received April 11,
1997), reply brief (Paper No. 13, received July 17, 1997), and
supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 16, received October 31,
1997) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to the appellants’ specification
and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007