Appeal No. 1998-0990
Application 08/327,389
Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Morehouse.
Rather that repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we refer the reader to Appellant’s Brief1 and the
Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
1 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on May 30, 1997. Appellant
filed an amended Appeal Brief on September 29, 1997 in response
to a Notification of Non-Compliance letter mailed by the Examiner
on August 26, 1997. This amended Appeal Brief was responded to
by the Examiner’s Answer. The amended Appeal Brief will be
referred to hereinafter as simply the “Brief.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007