Appeal No. 1999-2276
Application 08/785,802
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of
Appellant and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellant’s admitted
prior art and Mori.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ
1443, 1444 (Fed Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed Cir. 1984). The Examiner
can satisfy this burden by showing that some objective
teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject
matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to
the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at 1444.
See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788 (“After a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007