Appeal No. 2004-1395 Page 3
Application No. 09/407,053
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 18, mailed November 19, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 23,
mailed May 6, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 22, filed April 17, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed
July 3, 2003) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant 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, 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 15 and 17 to 22 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007