Ex Parte IIZUKA et al - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2004-1680                                                                                        
              Application No. 09/122,741                                                                                  


              answer (Paper No. 28, mailed Feb. 10, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of                      
              the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 26, filed Nov. 25, 2003) and reply brief                
              (Paper No. 30, filed Apr. 7, 2004) 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.                                                        


                                                    35 U.S.C. § 103                                                       
                     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                             



                                                            3                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007