Ex parte NICHOLS et al. - Page 3




         Appeal No. 2000-1482                                      Page 3          
         Application No. 08/995,706                                                


         filed September 1, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed             
         February 7, 2000) for the appellants' 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.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                    
         determinations which follow.                                              


              In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner              
         bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.             
         See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956              
         (Fed. Cir. 1993).  A case of obviousness is established by                
         presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear             
         to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art            
         having the references before him to make the proposed                     
         combination or other modification.  See In re Lintner, 458                
         F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  Furthermore,             
         the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007