Appeal No. 2003-1036
Application No. 09/330,865
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 Dec. 11, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed Oct. 29, 2002) and reply brief (Paper
No. 16, filed Feb. 19, 2003) for 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.
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 shown by some
objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007