Appeal No. 2004-0582
Application No. 09/037,945
answer (Paper No. 28, mailed Mar. 21, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 19, filed Mar. 27, 2001), appellants’
first supplemental brief (Paper No. 24, filed Jun. 27, 2002), second supplemental
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 26, filed Jan. 28, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 30, filed
Sep. 29, 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.
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 the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as
shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007