Appeal No.2002-1516
Application No. 09/052,744
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 20, filed Mar. 26, 2001) and reply brief
(Paper No. 23, filed Aug. 3, 2001) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to group all the claims as
standing or falling together in a single group. (See brief at page 3.) Yet, appellants
have provided arguments to independent claims 1 and 23 together and a separate
argument for independent claim 17. From our review of independent claim 17, we find
this claim to be the broadest claim, but will address it second since appellants
essentially rely on the arguments made with respect to independent claims 1 and 23 for
independent claim 17.
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 the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007