Appeal No. 2003-1030
Application No. 08/820,181
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Sep. 26, 2001) and reply brief
(Paper No. 12, filed Mar. 13, 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.
We note that appellant has elected to group the claims into four separate
groupings (now three since claim 8 has been indicated as allowable). Therefore, we will
address appellant’s argument with respect to a representative claim from each
grouping. (37 CFR 1.192.)
CLAIM 1
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
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007