Appeal No. 1997-2509
Application No. 08/230,982
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
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 for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang and
Manning in view of Paul taken with Kwan, Kato, Singh and Patel.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007