Appeal No. 2000-1669 Page 4
Application No. 08/433,328
In reaching our decision, we have given careful
consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. Upon
evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion
that the evidence adduced by the examiner is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claims 16 and 17. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Blower, in
view of Kraemer and Calvert. 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 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007