Appeal No. 96-2189
Application 07/969,731
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the acknowledged
prior art or Matsko in view of Yalla. Claims 3 and 9 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
acknowledged prior art or Matsko in view of Yalla in further
in view of either Tubbs, McLaughlin or Cheng.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 9
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
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007