Appeal No. 2003-1018
Application No. 09/093,771
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
Claims 1, 5-11, 14-16, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
obvious over Chayen in view of Puski and Yoshimura.
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). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires
that the prior art both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable
expectation of success to one reasonably skilled in the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,
493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007