Appeal No. 96-3746
Application 08/236,007
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barney.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barney in view of Maeno.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s statement of the
rejections and the arguments of the examiner and the appellants
in support of their respective positions, reference is made to
the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 29), the Appellant’s Brief
(Paper No. 28) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 31) for the full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’ specification
and claims, the applicable law, the applied references and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the examiner’s rejections should be reversed.
In order for the examiner to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness, he must establish why one having ordinary
skill in the art would be led to the claimed invention by the
reasonable teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
a reasonable inference to the artisan contained in such teachings
or suggestions. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 217 USPQ 1
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007