Appeal No. 96-0885
Application 08/108,932
found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found.
v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1991). As discussed above, the examiner has not
explained where the Robinson disclosure meets all of the
limitations of any of appellant’s independent claims to which
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is applied. The
examiner therefore has not met his initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation. See In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Robinson is reversed.
The examiner does not explain, and we do not
independently find, where Robinson would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the elements
of the independent claims discussed above. We therefore do
not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Robinson.
Rejection of claims 11, 19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Robinson in view of Humphrey
Humphrey discloses a thin, elongated slice of bread
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007