Appeal No. 96-2657
Application 08/212,379
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 2 3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 through 13
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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 27, 1995. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on April 1, 1996. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner responded with mailing a second Examiner's answer on
May 1, 1996. The Appellants responded to the second Examiner's
answer by filing a second reply appeal brief on May 14, 1996
by resubmitting the reply brief. The Examiner responded to
the reply brief with a letter, mailed May 28, 1996, stating
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, dated January 29, 1996. The Examiner responded to the
reply brief filed April 1, 1996 with a substitute Examiner's
answer, mailed May 1, 1996. We will refer to the substitute
Examiner's answer as simply the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007