Appeal No. 96-2025
Application 07/860,254
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 2 3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 9
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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on March 28, 1994.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on August 15, 1994. The
Examiner responded to this reply brief with a supplemental
Examiner's answer on November 17, 1994, thereby entering and
considering the reply brief. Appellants filed a supplemental
reply appeal brief on January 13, 1995. The Examiner
responded to this supplemental reply brief with a supplemental
Examiner's answer on April 17, 1995, thereby entering and
considering the reply brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal
brief on June 19, 1995. The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s
letter dated February 15, 1996 that the June 19, 1995 reply
brief has been entered and considered but no further response
by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, dated June 14, 1994. The Examiner responded to the
August 15, 1994 reply brief with supplemental Examiner's
answer dated November 17, 1994. The Examiner responded to the
January 13, 1995 supplemental reply brief with a supplemental
Examiner's answer dated April 17, 1995.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007