Appeal No. 2000-1789 Page 3
Application No. 08/699,572
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 20, filed September 10, 1999) and
reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed January 27, 2000) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
examiner is sufficient to establish a case of obviousness only with respect to claim 16.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4 to 15, 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for these determinations follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A 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 make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007