Appeal No. 95-1238
Application 08/009,406
that it would have been obvious to simplify the Arendt invention
by assuming that the absorption coefficients of titanium oxide
and calcium carbonate are equal as taught by Utt and thus
utilizing only two x-ray energies instead of three x-ray energies
as taught by Arendt.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 9, 1994. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on October 24, 1994. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated
in the Examiner’s letter dated September 5, 1996 that the reply
brief has been entered and considered but no further response by
the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007