Appeal No. 97-0280
Application 08/192,839
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Highleyman et al. (Highleyman) 3,596,254 July 27, 1971
Stevens 3,681,578 Aug. 1, 1972
Dooley et al. (Dooley) 5,220,567 June 15, 1993
(filed Dec. 26, 1991)
Claims 1 and 16 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens and Dooley.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stevens, Dooley and Highleyman.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 16
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. 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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 27, 1996. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on June 18, 1996. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated
in the Examiner’s letter dated July 8, 1996 that the reply brief
has been entered and considered but no further response by the
Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007