Appeal No. 94-2864
Application No. 07/911,729
of Mallindine. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Grewe,
Germain and Mallindine as applied to claims 17-19 above,
further in view of Scholl.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including all
of the arguments advanced by appellant and the examiner in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well-
founded for essentially those reasons expressed at page 5 of the
Brief and pages 2 through 4 of the Reply Brief. Accordingly, we
reverse each of the foregoing rejections. We only add that the
examiner must be mindful of his burden of supplying evidence for
establishing obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 154
USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
However, as indicated by appellant at page 5 of the Brief and
pages 2 through 4 of the Reply Brief, the examiner has not met
his burden of establishing obviousness for the limitation
“forming on the exterior surface of the reservoir a flexible2
2At pages 5 and 6 of the specification, appellant
distinguishes forming a flexible reticulated metering layer
from providing a flexible reticulated metering layer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007