Appeal No. 1998-0622
Application No. 08/360,972
answer and the brief for the respective details thereof.2 3
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the appellants’ arguments set forth in the principal
brief.
We reverse.
In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition
that in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
an examiner is under a burden to make out a prima facie case
of obviousness. If that burden is met, the burden of going
forward then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
2An examiner’s answer was filed as paper no. 18 responding to the
principal brief, however, the examiner did not list any references relied upon
in the answer, see page 3 of the answer. A corrected supplemental examiner’s
answer was filed as paper no. 20 correcting the oversight in the prior
examiner’s answer listing the references relied upon. The corrected
examiner’s answer still responds to the principal brief as did the prior
answer. Therefore, it is the corrected examiner’s answer, paper no. 20, which
is being considered in this decision.
3 The principal brief was filed on April 2, 1997 as paper no. 13.
However, the claims in the attached appendix contained incorrect numbering of
the claims. Therefore, another brief was filed as paper no. 17 on August 1,
1997 containing the correct numbering of the claims on appeal. Other than
that, the appeal brief filed on August 1, 1997, is the same as the principal
brief filed as paper no. 13. It is paper no. 13 brief which is being
considered for this decision since the examiner has written her examiner’s
answer responding to that brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007