Appeal No. 96-0023
Application 07/958,046
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 3 4
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 5 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
3Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 20, 1995. We will refer to
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant filed a response to the new
ground of rejection (a reply appeal brief) on June 23, 1995. We will refer to
this response as the reply brief.
4The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's answer, mailed
April 20, 1995. We will refer to the Examiner's answer as simply the answer.
We note that the answer contains a new ground of rejection rejecting claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hitchens, Thalimer,
Nigawara and Knoop. The Examiner responded to the reply brief with a
supplemental Examiner's answer, mailed April 12, 1996. We will refer to the
supplemental Examiner's answer as simply the supplemental answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007