Appeal No. 1999-1449
Application 08/640,351
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Spurbeck and Minuhin. Thus, we
will reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3-18.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spurbeck in view of
Minuhin and Nowak.
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 the prior art or knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the
claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden
is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24
USPQ at 1444. See also Piaseki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at
788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007