Appeal No. 1998-2063
Application No. 08/531,087
rejection (Paper No. 10, mailed March 24, 1997) and the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15, mailed December 2, 1997) for
the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s
brief (Paper No. 14, filed October 27, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed January 12, 1998) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions as set forth by appellant 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 appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in
the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007