Appeal No. 95-1711
Application No. 08/063,819
configuration which is defined as the molded parts secured to
a runners system by gates of the molding material to effect
degating. Although the examiner has asserted in his answer at
page 5 that an attached runner, sprue and gate to a molded
part is commonly referred to in the art as “flash,” the
examiner has pointed to no objective evidence in the record to
support this factual assertion. Thus, it is apparent that the
examiner has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness for the subject matter defined
by the appealed claims. In contending that the appellant has
provided no objective evidence that degating and flash removal
are entirely different operations, the examiner has put the
cart before the horse. It is well settled that it is the
examiner’s burden, in the first instance, to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. This he has not done.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s
rejection of the appealed claims for obviousness.
Claims 17, 19, 21 and 23 also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because, according to the
examiner, the disclosure is enabling only for claims limited
to polyvinyl alcohol resins. We also reverse this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007