Appeal No. 2004-0351
Application No. 09/463,277
7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988). For the reasons
explained above, there is questionable support for the examiner’s
position that the applied prior art would have suggested the
modification under review, and there appears to be no support at
all for a reasonable expectation that the modification would be
successful.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the
examiner has failed to carry his initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter defined by appealed claims 1-6. It follows that we cannot
sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 1-6 as
being unpatentable over Verhey in view of Krijnen. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007