Appeal No. 2000-1993 Page 4
Application No. 09/157,130
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 1, 4 to 6, 9
and 12 to 14 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 when the combined teachings of the
applied prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the relevant teachings of the applied prior art
to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007