Ex Parte Yokokawa et al - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2003-2153                                                                  Page 3                
              Application No. 09/632,160                                                                                  


              support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed November 26, 2002) and                      
              reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 3, 2003) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                 


                                                       OPINION                                                            
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                      
              the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                   
              respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  Upon evaluation of                    
              all the evidence before us, 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 rejection of                      
              claims 1 to 8 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 evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to                  
              combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.                        
              See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re                         
              Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  However, the mere                             
              fact that the prior art could be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does                      








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007