Appeal No. 2002-0582
Application No. 09/083,936
Throughout the opinion, we will make references to the
briefs1 and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and arguments of Appellant and
Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6-8, 9 and 12 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 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, 87 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on April 10, 2001.
Appellant filed a supplemental appeal brief on August 20, 2001.
Appellant filed a reply brief on August 20, 2001. The examiner
mailed out an Office communication on September 18, 2001, stating
that the reply brief has been entered and considered.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007