Appeal No. 96-1249
Application 08/270,215
a analog screen will interfere with the resistive function of
that layer.
Because for the foregoing reasons, the examiner has
failed to meet his initial burden to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, we need not consider appellants' 37 CFR
§ 1.132 declaration, which is offered as rebuttal evidence.
The § 103 rejection of claim 19 and its dependent claims
20-35 for unpatentability over Kuhlman in view of Mikoshiba
and Olson is reversed.
REVERSED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 13 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007