Interference No. 103,613
Also, the examiner reached a similar conclusion in an Office Action dated August 3, 1995
(Paper No. 21) in Cochran's involved application.
The documentary evidence (prior art publications) relied upon by Sondermeijer is of
sufficient probative value to establish a r~ ima facie case of obviousness. Thus, the
burden of coming forward with evidence of non-obviousness (to rebut the 3prima facie case
of obviousness) clearly falls upon Cochran. Cochran has failed to satisfy that burden.
The Cochran opposition to motion 4 alludes on page 16 to nine parameters which are
allegedly not discussed in the prior art publications cited by Sondermeijer. However,
Cochran failed to explain in its opposition (or in its brief at final hearing) the
relevance of these parameters to the issue of obviousness. Certainly, if Cochran believed
that these parameters were essential elements for establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, it was incumbent upon Cochran to fully explain their relevance, and to
demonstrate by the presentation of credible evidence or sound technical reasoning why
those parameters are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record, and would not
otherwise have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. Cochran failed to do
so. Instead, Cochran merely alluded
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007