Ex parte MILLMAN et al. - Page 7
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte MILLMAN et al. - Page 7
Appeal No. 1999-0259
Application 08/596,857
burden of going forward shifts to the applicant.”). If the
Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection
is improper and accordingly merits reversal. Fine, 837 F.2d
at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598.
We commence our analysis by reviewing and weighing
all the pertinent evidence and arguments. See Oetiker, 977
F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 (“In reviewing the examiner’s
decision on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of
the evidence and argument.”).
The Appellants’ Arguments are directed to the three
independent claims on appeal. In the discussion of claim 1,
Appellants argue that “[they] have pointed to specific claim
language in claim 1 . . . that distinguishes over the Komoda
reference.” Brief at pages 4-5. Specifically, Appellants
assert that Komoda fails to teach the limitation “identifying
effective
load impedances for each of the plurality of serially coupled
circuit cells, where the circuit cells include active
elements.” Brief at pages 4-5. Next, in the discussion of
7
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
