Appeal No. 2001-1947
Application 08/333,202
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful 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 above-noted rejection, we make reference to the
Examiner's Answer for the examiner=s complete reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to the appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
We have considered this appeal along with related appeal No. 2001-1259, Serial No.
08/337,671. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. ' 102 and 103
Claims 20-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, or in the alternative under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Friedmann or the Merck Index. Claim 22 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over either Friedmann or Merck Index.
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). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007