Appeal No. 2001-1242
Application No. 08/530,650
We reverse these rejections.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's Answer for
the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants' Brief and Reply
Brief for the appellants' arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-3, 8-12 and 14-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Buchalter,
alone or in combination with Dake and/or Lavash. Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Buchalter, by itself or in combination with Dake and/or Lavash,
further in view of Ampulski of record.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is well-established that the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007