Appeal No. 2003-0033
Application No. 09/186,546
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sourgen. The examiner uses Abadi as evidence to support taking Official notice.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed May 17, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed Mar. 12, 2002) for the
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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007