Appeal No. 2006-3096
Application No. 10/116,676
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
BARRY et al. 5,887,274 Mar. 23, 1999
(BARRY)
JONES et al. 6,622,176 Sep. 16, 2003
(JONES) (filed Apr. 19, 1995)
BASANI et al. 2004/0215709 Oct. 28, 2004
(BASANI) (effective date Apr. 7, 2000)
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (mailed April 27, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
Appellant’s brief (filed July 22, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by Appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
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 the reference teachings would appear to be
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007