Appeal No. 2005-2500
Application No. 09/893,399
teacher.”). Thus, we are constrained to agree with the
appellants that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter within
the meaning of Section 103. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(The examiner bears the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.)
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 3 and 5 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP/sld
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007