Appeal No. 1996-3768 Page 4
Application No. 08/292,887
Authorized Engineering Information hereinafter LD 3-1991 taken
with either the Formica COLORCORE reference or the 2244 ®
Research Disclosure Abstract hereinafter 2244. 2
OPINION
We have carefully considered the respective arguments for
and against patentability by appellants and the examiner. We
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 25, 27 through 30,
32, 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to claims 25 and 33. We
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to claims 1
through 24, 27 through 30, 32, 34 and 35.
The Section 103 Rejection
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability.” See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner
relies upon a combination of three references to reject the
claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of
2We refer in our statement of the rejection to the
specific identification of the references used by the examiner
in the Answer, pages 3-4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007