Appeal No. 2001-2329 Page 3
Application No. 09/252,761
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final rejection
and the answer (Paper No. 11, mailed May 1, 2001) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10, filed March 26,
20011) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed July 5, 2001) 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
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under
appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007