Appeal No. 1999-2307
Application No. 08/711,074
Claims 3 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kazami in view of Yoshida and further in view of Itoh.
OPINION
With full consideration given to the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejection and the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we will reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 21.
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 prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the burden of going forward
shifts to the applicant.”).
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and consideration of all the
pertinent evidence and arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007