Appeal No. 95-5110
Application 07/918,954
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 1
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 2 through 4, 7 and 10
through 12 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpat-entable over Tsuzuki and Katou.
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
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on December 28, 1994.
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on July 10, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter dated August 4, 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007