Appeal No. 2001-1448
Application No. 09/121,036
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
11, mailed April 11, 2000) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
18, mailed January 2, 2001) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 17, filed October
11, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed March 2, 2001) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
above-noted rejections will not be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
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); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446,
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007