Appeal No. 2003-0918 Page 3
Application No. 09/395,659
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed October 22, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed July 12, 2002) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
examiner is sufficient to establish a case of obviousness only with respect to claims 1,
2, 6, 8 and 9. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 3
to 5, 7 and 10 to 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007