Ex parte MARTENSSON et al. - Page 3




             Appeal No. 1998-2936                                                                                 
             Application No. 08/665,590                                                                           


                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the             
             appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                 
             answer (Paper No. 29, mailed Mar. 11, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of               
             the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 28, filed Jan. 8, 1998) for the              
             appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                                  
                                                    OPINION                                                       

                    In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the           
             appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                
             respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of            
             our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                 
                    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 by presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be                   

             sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to         
             make the proposed combination or other modification.  See In re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013,                

             1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed                   
             subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by                     




                                                        3                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007