Appeal No. 94-2901
Application No. 07/837,666
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 34), and the "Answer to Examiner's
Supplemental Answer" (Paper No. 36); (3) the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 33), the first Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 35),
and the second Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 37); (4) the
above-cited references relied on by the examiner; and (5) the
previous opinion and decision issued by another merits panel
of the Board in parent Application Serial No. 07/067,001
(Appeal No. 91-2989, mailed January 14, 1992).
On consideration of the record, including the above-
listed materials, we reverse the examiner's rejections.
SECTION 103
The facts adduced by the examiner would appear to support
a conclusion of prima facie obviousness of claim 19 over
Orelski, Atkinson, and the acknowledged prior art in the
specification (paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6), further
considered in view of Jenness or Brockmann. That, however,
does not end the inquiry. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("If a prima facie
case is made in the first instance, and if the applicant comes
forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007