Appeal No. 1999-2849
Application No. 08/690,966
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Storck in view of Fujita.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Storck in view of Rovin.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration of the evidence before us on
the record, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 13 and 20 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
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on March 1, 1999.
Appellants filed a reply brief on June 9, 1999. The Examiner
mailed an office action on June 21, 1999 stating that the
reply brief had been entered and considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007