The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ROD A. GARCIA
______________
Appeal No. 2003-0362
Application 09/439,973
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellant, in the brief, and based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 15,1 all of the
claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takado et al.
(Takado) in view of von Bonin.2
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must show that
1 See specification, pages 11-13. Appellant states in the brief that “[c]laim 1 is representative of
the invention” (page 4). Thus, we decide the appeal based on claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2002).
2 The statement of the ground of rejection is set forth in the Office action of July 17, 2001 (Paper
No. 4; pages 2-4) (answer, page 3).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007