Appeal No. 1997-2467 Page 4
Application No. 08/509,753
The prior art applied in rejecting the claims follows:
Patton et al. (Patton) 4,868,745 Sep. 19, 1989
Keene, Object-Oriented Programming in Common LISP 8, 9,
66-115 (1989).
Claims 1-4 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Patton in view of Keene. Rather than
reiterate the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto,
we refer the reader to the brief and answer for the respective
details thereof.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4 and 11-18.
Accordingly, we reverse. We begin by noting the following
principles from
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007