Appeal No. 96-1480
Application No. 08/179,779
appeal also include the two rejections that the Board 2
reversed in the prior appeal?
In addition to the lack of a positive statement of the
rejection(s), the Examiner’s Answer lacks a response to
appellant’s extensive analysis of the claimed invention and
the applied prior art under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1,
148 USPQ 459 (1966) (Brief, pages 8 through 20).
In summary, a prima facie case of unpatentability of the
claimed invention has not been established by the examiner.
The examiner’s rejection(s), if any, of the claimed invention
are reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
2The rejections of claims 6 through 22 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) were
reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007