Ex parte KAHLE et al. - Page 4




                     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