Appeal No. 95-4501
Application No. 07/827,549
required in the face of the examiner’s failure to specifically
set forth a prima facie case of anticipation and/or
obviousness, specifically identifying where, and how, Daniels,
and/or Hester and Daniels in the case of the additional
rejection of claims 17 and 18, suggests the claimed limitation
of “starting and stopping operations...”
We make no representations that the instant claimed
subject matter may not somehow be anticipated, or made
obvious, by Daniels and/or Hester. We reverse the instant
rejections solely on the grounds that the examiner has failed
to present any convincing line of reasoning that would
establish a prima facie case of anticipation and/or
obviousness.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007