Appeal No. 2000-1156
Application No. 08/578,706
Claims 7 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Arraudeau,
Denzinger and Sehm.
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude
that the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for
the reasons set forth by the appellants in their Brief and below.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, “the examiner bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). In other words, the examiner must provide a sufficient
factual basis to support his Section 103 rejection. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied, 390 U.S. 1000
(1968).
Here, consistent with the appellants’ assertion, the
examiner has not supplied a sufficient factual basis to establish
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007