Appeal No. 2000-1092 3
Application No. 08/933,959
THE REJECTIONS1
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Freeman or Konig.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with appellants for the reasons set forth below that the rejections of
claims 1through 5 through under §103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection.
The Rejection under § 103
"[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability," whether on the grounds of
anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d. 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner relies upon two
references in the alternative to reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.
It is the examiner’s position that, although the prior art neither uses the term
“rounded, randomly shaped contour” nor discloses the process steps recited in
1A rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn by the
examiner. See Answer, page 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007