Appeal No. 1999-0246
Application 08/641,629
Appellants bear the burden of showing that the evidence
on which the examiner relies is insufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness or that appellants have
provided evidence which rebuts the prima face case of
obviousness. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 47 USPQ2d
1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998):
To reject claims in an application under section
103, an examiner must show an unrebutted prima facie
case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552,
1557, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the
absence of a proper prima facie case of obviousness,
an applicant who complies with the other statutory
requirements is entitled to a patent. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or
by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of
secondary indicia of nonobviousness. See id.
Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on which
the examiner's prima facie case is based.
E. The merits of the rejection
Smitt discloses a computer network 11 which includes a
control and switching device 17 for selectively coupling a
remote
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007