Ex parte KODAIRA et al. - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1999-2000                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/859,494                                                                                                                                            


                                Claims 44 through 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                                                                                                
                     as being unpatentable over Appellants’ prior art figure 7,                                                                                                        
                     Fisher and Asano.                                                                                                                                                 





                                Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and                                                                                              
                     the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs  and answer for                                    1                                                                
                     the respective details thereof.                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                   OPINION                                                                                             
                                We will not sustain the rejection of claims 44 through 47                                                                                              
                     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                                                                                                      



                                1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on March 5, 1999.                                                                                                   
                     Appellants filed a reply brief on June 16, 1999.  The Examiner                                                                                                    
                     mailed an office communication on September 2, 1999 stating                                                                                                       
                     that the reply brief has been entered and considered.                                                                                                             
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007