Appeal No. 2005-2671
Application No. 09/971,774
I. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Jacobi
in view of Monson.
II. Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Jacobi and Monson
in view of Allgood.
III. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
Jacobi and Monson in view of Nicholson.
IV. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
Jacobi and Monson in view of Physicians Desk Reference (PDR).
We affirm the rejections I-IV with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 6-9, 11-12 and 26.
We reverse the rejections I-IV with respect to claims 3, 4 and 10.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness
I. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Jacobi
in view of Monson.
We preliminarily note that appellants have only argued claims 3 and 4 separately
with respect to this rejection, thus claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11 and 12 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). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007