Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
Rather that reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for 2 3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 23 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 invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on May 4, 1995.
Appellant filed a reply brief on September 26, 1995 in
response to the new grounds of rejection.
3The Examiner filed an Examiner's answer on July 26, 1995
and a supplemental Examiner's answer on February 1, 1996.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007