Ex Parte Hammond - Page 3




                Appeal No. 2005-1023                                                                                  Page 3                    
                Application No. 09/963,734                                                                                                      



                                                                  OPINION                                                                       
                         In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                                        
                the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                                       
                respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  Upon evaluation of                                         
                all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the                                               
                examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to                                         
                the claims under appeal.  Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of                                          
                claims 1 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Our reasoning for this determination follows.                                            


                         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 would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to                                      
                combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.  See                                       
                In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re                                                 
                Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).                                                                    














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

Last modified: November 3, 2007