Appeal No. 2003-1025
Application No. 09/224,918
which applicant regards as the invention. Accordingly, we
reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 37, we do not find the claim
to be indefinite. We find that one skilled in the art would
fully understand the claim.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 17,
20-25, and 28-49 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
claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14-15, 17, 20-25, and 28-49. 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
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007