Appeal No. 2001-1685
Application No. 08/596,698
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the
Examiner's Answer for the examiner=s complete reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to the appellants’ Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. ' 103
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Iverson in
view of Bang. Claims 7-8 and 20-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Iverson in view of Bang in further view of Stocker.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires
that the prior art both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveals a reasonable
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007