Appeal No. 95-4897
Application 08/242,806
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murata. Claims 8
through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murata and Kavehrad.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 6 through 10 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
Appellants filed an appeal brief on January 9, 1995. We will refer to2
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief
on April 24, 1995. The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter, mailed May
17, 1995, that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007