Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
Claims 19 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bradbury in view of Takach and further in
view of Bullock and Konno.
Throughout our opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
1
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on November 12, 2002.
Appellants filed a reply brief on April 9, 2003. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on June 3, 2003 stating that
the reply brief has been entered.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007