Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 3
Application No. 09/099,963
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19, filed August 13, 2001) and
reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed January 17, 2002) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
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. 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 claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13 to 15, 17, 21, 23 and 24. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13 to 15, 17, 21, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, 10 to 12, 16, 18 to 20 and
23 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 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007