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. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007