Appeal No. 2001-1545
Application No. 09/199,666
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 26-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chau in view of Thomas and Shiozawa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Jan. 19, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Dec. 1, 2000) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 USC § 103
To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must
show an unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel,
51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the
absence of a proper prima facie case of obviousness, an applicant who
complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to a patent. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting
the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007