Appeal No. 2003-0160
Application No. 08/971,320
15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of
Guscott.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 29, mailed May 20, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 28, filed Apr. 16, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 30, filed May 25, 2002) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Initially, we note that appellant has elected at page 2 of the brief to group all the
claims as standing or falling together. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim and will address appellant’s arguments thereto
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 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007