Appeal No. 94-0105
Application 07/854,124
12, pages 5 and 12-16. However, because the examiner has not
carried his burden of establishing a case of prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter of independent claim 1, and
the supplemental references do not cure the deficiencies of
the primary reference, we cannot sustain any rejections of
record.
We base our decision on the examiner’s position regarding the
rejection of claim 1 as expressed in his answers, Paper No.
18, and Paper No. 20, item 5 (pages 2 to 3); we need not
discuss the other rejections before us on this appeal.
Appellant’s position vis-à-vis the rejection of claim 1 is set
out fully in Paper No. 12, pages 12-14.
Opinion
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter of claim
1, the examiner relies on Gao, which he characterizes as
disclosing each step of the recited process but for the use of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007