Appeal No. 96-3540
Application 07/815,654
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 17) and
answer (Paper No. 18) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 12
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 reasonable teachings or suggestions found in
the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan,
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In regard to the rejection of claims 1 through 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit, Appellants
argue (1) that Shavit does not set forth an advanced shipment
2(...continued)
action may be incorporated by reference. An examiner's answer
should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to more than
one prior Office action (MPEP § 1208).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007