Appeal No. 1996-3866
Application 08/087,957
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's Answer for
the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ Brief and Reply
Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 14-15 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Minor.
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 teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires that the prior art
both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable expectation of success
to one reasonably skilled in the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438,
1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007