Appeal No. 1998-1902
Application No. 08/435,592
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967)). The one who bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We conclude that the evidence
provided in the instant case is insufficient to support the rejection of claims 1 and 2, and
therefore do not sustain the rejection.
With respect to the rejection of claims 3-8, for which Eschbach is added to Barton
and “the well known prior art,” the Eschbach reference fails to provide the basic teachings
that we find to be missing from Barton. As the examiner correctly notes, Figure 3B of
Eschbach discloses a filter weighting arrangement that has three terms and two weights,
as required by instant claim 3. However, claim 3 requires the precise weights of “8 - 0 - 4 -
4,” and Eschbach, as Barton, fails to provide any reasons for leading the artisan to the
claimed weighting scheme. We therefore do not sustain the section 103 rejection of
claims 3-12.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-12 is reversed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007