Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-18, 20 and 22 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 14687,
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
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
1(...continued)
Appellant filed a reply brief on May 15, 2003. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on June 13, 2003 stating that
the reply has been entered into the record.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007