Appeal No. 2003-0902
Application No. 09/332,413
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the
Appellants' briefs, and to the Examiner's Answer for the
respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of the
Appellant and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14,
15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 20
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim
5. Accordingly, we reverse.
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
1 Appellants' filed an appeal brief on July 2, 2002. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on August 27, 2002.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007