Appeal No. 1997-2865
Application 08/113,789
Rather that reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the 1
answers for the respective details thereof.2
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and
4 through 7 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 determin-
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 31, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on December 6, 1996. The
examiner considered and entered the reply brief as stated in
the supplemental examiner's answer mailed February 24, 1997.
2The Examiner filed an Examiner's answer on September 6,
1996. The Examiner filed a supplemental Examiner's answer on
February 24, 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007