Ex parte KRULL - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2000-0869                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 09/150,225                                                  


          filed December 2, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed                
          January 27, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.               


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellant and the                   
          examiner.  Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it                
          is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is              
          insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness                 
          with respect to the claims under appeal.  Accordingly, we will              
          not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 21, 24, 32 and               
          34 to 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Our reasoning for this                     
          determination follows.                                                      


               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).  A prima facie case of                  
          obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007