Appeal No. 1998-3348 Page 5
Application No. 08/541,948
Rather than reiterate 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 rejections of the examiner. Furthermore, we
duly considered the arguments and evidence of the appellants
and examiner. After considering the record, we are persuaded
that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10.
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. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
herima 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
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007