Appeal No. 95-4761
Application No. 08/012,781
ultimately intersecting lines when viewed in the entire
context of the described grid. We reach the conclusion,
however, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that Appellants’ disclosed grid structure would
have non-intersecting as well as intersecting lines. For
example, lines around the perimeter of a grid that define the
outer contours of the grid are non-intersecting lines. We
note that “intersect” is defined in Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary as “to pierce or divide by passing
through or across; to meet and cross at a point". Thus,
contour defining perimeter lines which abut but do not cross
the grid lines are non-intersecting lines. For the above
reasons we can not sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 18
under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112.
We will also not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6
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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007