Appeal No. 2005-0090
Application No. 10/057,025
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Abe et al. (Abe) 4,914,562 Apr. 03, 1990
Taub et al. (Taub) 5,308,442 May 03, 1994
Figueredo et al. (Figueredo) 6,155,674 Dec. 05, 2000
Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) 6,214,245 Apr. 10, 2001
Ramaswami et al. (Ramaswami) 6,267,471 Jul. 31, 2001
Claims 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ramaswami in view of Abe, Figueredo, Taub, and Hawkins.
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 (mailed Dec. 30, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellants’ brief (filed Nov. 12, 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007