Appeal No. 1998-2815
Application No. 08/648,790
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed April 18, 1997) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 9, mailed October 21, 1997) for
the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants'
brief (Paper No. 8, filed September 2, 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,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007