Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellants' arguments set forth in the brief and
the reply brief.
It is our view that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over White is affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 5 and
28 through 31, but reversed with respect to claims 6 through
8, 32 and 33; the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Motorola and Henderson is affirmed with respect to claims 16
and 22 through 27; and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Ryoichi, Marian and Henderson is reversed with respect to
claims 1 through 15, 17 through 21 and 28 through 47.
Accordingly, we affirm in part.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
2A reply brief was filed on Jan. 22, 1996 [paper no. 21]
and was entered in the record [paper no. 26].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007