Appeal No. 1999-0426
Application No. 08/247,894
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. 26, mailed Jul. 6, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 25, filed April 17, 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. Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 1, 6,
and 16. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007