Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellants’ arguments
against the rejections as set forth in the briefs.
We affirm-in-part.
Since there are rejections under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
35 U.S.C. § 103, we review the applicable laws before
considering the rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
We note that a prior art reference anticipates the
subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature
of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see
Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984)). Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner
is under a burden to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness. If that burden is met, the burden of going
forward then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007