Appeal No. 96-0609
Application No. 08/024,803
Moran 4,257,097 Mar. 17,
1981
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Moran. Claims 20 and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Moran.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor will we sustain the rejection of
claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the Examiner
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
expressed teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or
3Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 9, 1995.
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on July 13, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter dated August 7, 1995
that the reply brief had been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner was deemed necessary.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007