Appeal No. 1996-3052
Application 08/064,639
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer 2
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and
4 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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 16, 1995.
The Examiner mailed a notice of defective brief on December
26, 1995. Appellants filed a corrected appeal brief on Janu-
ary 3, 1996. The corrected brief is the brief that is before
us for our consideration and we will simply refer to the
corrected brief as the brief. Appellants filed a reply brief
on May 30, 1996. The Examiner mailed a communication on June
21, 1996 stating that the reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed
necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007