Appeal No. 1999-1073
Application No. 08/819,239
2) Claims 1, 3 through 7 and 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Keogh,
Jow, Dokurno and Harbourne.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s
§ 103 rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse
the examiner’s § 103 rejections. Our reasons for this
determination follow.
Under Section 103, “the examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting
a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In other
words, the burden of producing a factual basis to support a
prima facie case of obviousness rests on the examiner. In re
Warner, 379, F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967).
In the present case, the examiner has not demonstrated that
the applied prior art references, either individually or in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007