Appeal No. 2003-0032
Application No. 09/193,966
Claims 20, 21, 41, 42, 62 and 63 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mohan and Lomet and
further in view of Graefe and Vicik.
We make reference to the Office action (Paper No. 14, mailed
November 27, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed July 1,
2002) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 13, filed October 9, 2001), the supplemental brief
(Paper No. 15, filed March 8, 2002)2 and the reply brief (Paper
No. 17, filed September 3, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
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). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
2 The supplemental brief was filed in response to the Examiner’s
reopening of the prosecution in a new Office action, mailed November 27, 2001.
The supplemental brief incorporates by reference the relevant parts of the
previously filed brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007