Appeal No. 2002-1061 Page 3
Application No. 09/358,365
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 21, mailed January 29, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 20, filed January 9, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed March 20, 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, 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
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 4,
7 to 10, 13 and 14 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,
1(...continued)
from consideration, not subject to this rejection, and not on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007