Appeal No. 2003-1796 Page 3
Application No. 09/513,563
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, to the
arguments against the rejection articulated by the appellants4 and the examiner's
response to the appellants' arguments5. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
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 by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1 and 23 to 25
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 23 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4 See the appellants' brief (Paper No. 18, filed January 29, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 22,
filed March 24, 2003).
5 See the examiner's answer (Paper No. 20, mailed January 21, 2003).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007