Appeal No. 1998-2119
Application No. 08/343,965
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 20, filed May 28, 1997) and reply
brief (Paper No. 23, filed
November 17, 1997) 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 2the 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 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The conclusion that
the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007