Appeal No. 2002-1044
Application No. 09/017,096
Rejections at Issue
Claims 10, 11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hatano in view of Des Jardins.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 21, 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hatano in view of Des Jardins, Norizuki and Bray.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hatano in view of Des Jardins and Kozaki.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the briefs2 and to the answer for
the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, for the
reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-13, 15, 20-22, 24
and 25. 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 USPQ 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
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 25, 2001. Appellants filed a reply brief on October 3,
2001. The Examiner mailed out an office communication on December 19, 2001 stating that the reply had
been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007