Appeal No. 95-1364
Application No. 07/919,287
Soviet Union Ordzhokikidze Chem-Pharm February 23,
I n v e n t o r ’ s (Ordzhokikidze) 1983
Certificate 923,028
Chemical Abstract Korsakova et al. (Korsakova) 1982
96:199209k
Chemical Abstract Lyubchanskaya et al. 1991
115:231795 (Lyubchanskaya)
Disposition
We reverse the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112; vacate the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and 103 and remand the application for further examination on these grounds; and enter
a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 2.
Analysis
The Burden of proof
In proceedings before the PTO the examiner has the burden of establishing the prima facie case
of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976). To meet this burden the examiner must present a factual basis supporting the
conclusion that a prima facie case exists. See In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785, 787, 165 USPQ 570, 571
(CCPA 1970); In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967); In re Lunsford,
357 F.2d 385, 391, 148 USPQ 721, 725 (CCPA 1966).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007