Appeal No. 1998-0824
Application No. 08/621,767
submitted by the Appellants in view of the teachings of
Takahashi.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the 1 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally
1Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on June 18, 1997.
Appellants filed a Reply Brief on October 31, 1997. The
Examiner mailed an Office Communication on January 16, 1998,
stating that the Reply Brief had been entered and considered
but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
2The Examiner mailed an Examiner's Answer on September 2,
1997. In response to Remand from the Board, the Examiner
mailed a Supplemental Examiner's Answer on May 9, 2001.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007