Appeal No. 2003-0862
Application No. 09/518,032
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied 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 noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
Answer for the examiner’s 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(a)
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Murray.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dowell.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Murray in
combination with Dowell.
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). It is well-established that the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by
evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007