Appeal No. 1996-4065
Application No. 08/234,115
Claims 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Enomoto
et al. and what was well known in the remote controller art,
and claims 5 through 8 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al., Enomoto et al.
and Smith.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief and
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 through 8 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 reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007