Appeal No. 2002-2107 Page 3
Application No. 09/160,085
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Williams in view of Domingo and Peterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Marshall.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 21, mailed January 15, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19, filed September 28, 2001) for
the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007