Interference No. 103,036
does the party Tucholski explain why the examiner's actions in
allowing the parties' claims over the references is in error.
Clearly, such a showing should have been made. Cf. Brown v.
Bravet, 25 USPQ2d 1147, 1150 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int 1992).
Accordingly, we hold that the party Tucholski has not
sustained its burden to demonstrate a prima facie case for
obviousness of the involved Burroughs et al. claims. Therefore,
we need not evaluate the secondary considerations (long felt need
and commercial success).
-30-
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007