Appeal No. 2003-1605
Application No. 08/982,934
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
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-
37. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 9, 2002 (Paper no. 26). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated February 10, 2003 (Paper No. 27), a
Reply Brief was filed April 7, 2003 (Paper No. 28), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated May 5, 2003
(Paper No. 29).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007