Appeal No. 1998-0938
Application 08/377,532
The examiner relies on the following references:
Koshiishi 4,652,933 Mar. 24, 1987
Seo 5,383,030 Jan. 17, 1995
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Seo in view of Koshiishi. Claims 2, 5, 6 and 20 through 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Koshiishi and
the examiner's notice of well-known prior art.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellants and the examiner, reference is
1 2
made to the briefs and answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 22 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
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on January 24, 1997. Appellants filed a reply brief on July 7, 1997.
The examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental examiner's answer dated October 28, 1997,
thereby considering and entering the reply brief. Appellants filed a supplemental reply brief on January 2,
1998. The examiner responded to the supplemental reply brief with a letter on January 14, 1998 stating that
the reply brief has been entered and considered.
2The examiner mailed an examiner's answer on May 7, 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007