Appeal No. 96-4189
Application 08/279,157
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8
through 16 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 suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
2The Examiner mailed a supplemental Examiner's answer on
July 10, 1996. However, the answer is a substitute for the
Examiner's answer mailed on May 8, 1996. We will thereby
treat the July 10, 1996 as the Examiner's answer for this
appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007