Appeal No. 2004-0559
Application No. 09/276,382
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for these rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along
with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set
forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection, the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and for the reasons
stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 14 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 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.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007