Appeal No. 2006-0663 Page 3
Application No. 09/841,862
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for their1
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
1-7 and 14-20. Accordingly, we affirm.
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden to make out
a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden is met, the
burden of going forward then shifts to Appellants to overcome the
1The Appeal Brief was filed July 18, 2005. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 23, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed
October 13, 2005 which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as
indicated in the communication mailed November 3, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007