Appeal No. 2004-0713 Page 3
Application No. 09/900,256
of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed May 12, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed October 2, 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 patent to Sonoda, 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 4 and 7 to 9 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
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Even when
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007