Appeal No. 1997-0600
Application 08/291,207
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 2
through 7, 10 and 11 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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 5, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on August 26, 1996. The Exam-
iner mailed a communication on November 27, 1996 stating that
the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007