Appeal No. 2001-1342
Application 08/994,821
Throughout the opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellants
and Examiner for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 15 and 17 through 28
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 USPQ2d 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
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on December 14, 2000.
Appellants filed a reply brief on March 12, 2001. The Examiner
mailed out an office communication on April 4, 2001, stating that
the reply brief has been entered.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007