Appeal No. 2001-1827
Application No. 08/696,404
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 35, mailed Nov. 21, 2000)1 for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 34, filed Sep. 8, 2000) for
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellant has elected to group claims 13-17 as
standing or falling together and claim 20 as a separate grouping. (See brief at page
12.) Therefore, we elect claim 13 as the representative claim for the first grouping and
claim 20 with the second group, and will address appellant’s arguments with respect to
claims 13 and 20.
“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
1 We note that all of the copies of the answer in the file were missing page 11 of the 12 page
answer. The examiner was contacted and a copy of the missing page was obtained, placed in the file and
a copy sent to appellant by facsimile prior to the hearing.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007