Appeal No. 2006-3146
Application No. 10/020,986
view of Gyotoku. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over AAPA and Yang and Gyotoku and further in
view of Gledhill. Claims 16, 17, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Yang and further in view of
Gledhill.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants 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 sufficient for one of ordinary
skill in the relevant art having the references before him to make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007