Appeal No. 2005-0170
Application No. 09/755,650
Lawlor et al. (Lawlor) 6,202,054 Mar. 13, 2001
(Filed Feb. 6, 1998)
Rudow et al. (Rudow) 6,236,360 May 22, 2001
(Filed Sep. 8, 1995)
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed Apr. 30, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (filed Feb. 17, 2004) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007