Appeal No. 2003-0130
Application 08/950,187
satisfy condition (2) (as well as conditions (4) and (5), see
footnote 1), in view of the acknowledged differences in
preparation.
Because the examiner has not met the required burden, we
reverse this rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 14, 43, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We observe appellants’ discussion (in both the brief and
reply brief) of Exhibit B and Exhibit C. Because we have
determined that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation or obviousness, according to our above
discussion, we do not comment on these exhibits in making our
determinations herein. See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2
USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
IV. Conclusion
Each of the rejections is reversed.
REVERSED
Chung K. Pak )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Terry J. Owens ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Beverly A. Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BAP/cam
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007