Appeal No. 2005-0986
Application No. 09/727,904
with regard to claims 1-4, and 7-20, adding Zheng with regard to
claims 5 and 6.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
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).
In the instant case, anent independent claim 1, the examiner
contends that Nishioka does not explicitly disclose the use of a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007