Appeal No. 96-2607
Application 08/001,865
Lawrie 4,051,551 Sep. 27, 1977
Johnson 5,136,697 Aug. 04, 1992
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Lawrie. Rather
than reiter- rate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective 2
details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 10 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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on September 29, 1995.
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on January 16, 1996. We will refer
to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner
stated in the Examiner’s letter dated February 15, 1996 that
the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007