Appeal No. 2004-0019 Page 3
Application No. 09/884,914
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed February 24, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed December 10, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed April 24, 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 (Yamaguchi, Wakata
and Saijo), 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 3 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007