Appeal No. 2002-0859
Application 09/193,444
Throughout our 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 the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 10, 12 through 16, 18
through 24, and 26 through 29 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 August 9, 2001.
Appellant filed a reply brief on January 29, 2002. On February
13, 2002, the Examiner mailed an Office Communication stating
that the reply brief has been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007