Appeal No. 96-1083
Application 08/150,099
1976
Flasck et al. (Flasck) 4,842,378 Jun. 27, 1989
Hartai 5,041,762 Aug. 20, 1991
Claims 1 through 3, 5 and 9 through 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . As evidence of obviousness,2
the Examiner offers Hartai, Verstegen and Flasck [answer, page
2].
Reference is made to Appellants' briefs and the 3
Examiner's answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record
before us, and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 5 and 9 through 14.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness. 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
2The rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph has been withdrawn [Advisory Action mailed on
Apr. 5, 1995, paper no. 13].
3A “Supplemental to Appeal Brief” was filed on Nov. 25,
1997. However, it merely supplied the missing formalities in
the Appeal Brief and did not change the arguments presented in
the Brief.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007