Appeal No. 2003-1459 Page 3
Application No. 09/534,469
and to the brief (Paper No. 7, filed December 16, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 9,
filed March 31, 2003) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us (i.e., Dockes and Camaisa), it is our conclusion that the
evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejections of claims 1 to 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for
this determination follows.
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 evidence1 that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
1 Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a reference may flow from the prior
art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the
nature of the problem to be solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568,
1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996), although
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007