Appeal No. 2002-1047
Application 09/083,174
Claims 2, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Matsugu in view of Green. Claim 12
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fields in view of Matsugu. Claims 5, 10, 13, and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsugu
in view of Gilblom. Claims 6 through 8 stand rejected 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Matsugu in view of Green and
Secka.
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 forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007