Appeal No. 1999-2727
Application No. 08/809,315
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
As the evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art appellant’s
claimed invention so as to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the subject matter of the claims on appeal, the
burden has not shifted to appellant to present evidence of
unobviousness, such as unexpected results.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 as being unpatentable over
Spratt.
We have reviewed the additional teachings of Saytar but
find nothing therein which cures the above-noted deficiency of
Spratt. Accordingly, we shall also not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Spratt in view
of Saytar.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007