Appeal No. 2005-0709
Application No. 09/767,197
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’
grouping of the claims at page 2 of the principal brief, all
claims will stand or fall together.
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). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner may satisfy
his/her burden only by showing some objective teaching in the
prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
It is the examiner’s contention that Smith teaches the
instant claimed subject matter (for the reasons enunciated at
page 4 of the answer) but for an explicit disclosure that the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007