Appeal No. 2004-0573
Application No. 09/406,017
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rostoker in view of Rajan. Claims 3, 8, 13,
18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rostoker
and Rajan in view of Giramma.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Aug. 26, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed Jun. 8, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 12, filed Oct. 27, 2003) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to specifically address claims
1-5 and have the remainder of the claims stand or fall with their corresponding claim.
(Brief at page 3.) Therefore, we will address claims 1-5 as the representative claims.
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,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007