Appeal No. 1997-0830
Application 08/132,998
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers 3 4
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5
through 10, 13 through 18, 27 through 50, and 64 through 77
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
3Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 13, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on July 15, 1996. In the
supplemental Examiner's answer mailed October 2, 1996, the
examiner states that the reply brief has been entered and
considered by the Examiner.
4The Examiner filed an Examiner's answer on May 14, 1996.
The Examiner filed a supplemental Examiner's answer on October
2, 1996.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007