Appeal No. 96-3901
Application 08/192,638
view of Volz. Rather than reiterate the arguments of
Appellant
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and 2
answers for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 15 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
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on November 24, 1995.
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on May 13, 1996. We will
refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental
Examiner's answer and thereby the reply brief has been entered
and considered.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, mailed March 11, 1996. We will refer to the Exam-
iner's answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded to
the reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's answer mailed
June 5, 1996. We will refer to the supplemental Examiner's
answer as simply the supplemental answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007