Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
Throughout the opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner for reason stated infra, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 20, 2002.
Appellant filed a reply brief on October 30, 2002. The Examiner
mailed an Office Communication on December 31, 2002, stating that
the reply brief has been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007