Appeal No. 1998-2987 Page 6
Application No. 08/250,332
view of Wolf and Hoffman, and further in view of Inoue or
Mori. Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants or
examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the totality
of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 22, 25, 27, and 32-35. 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. Section 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007