Appeal No. 1997-1240
Application 07/881,753
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers 2 3
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 16, 18, 20 and 22 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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 13, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on December 31, 1996. The
Examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental
Examiner's answer on May 27, 1997, thereby considering and
entering the reply brief into the record. Appellants filed a
supplemental reply brief on July 28, 1997. The Examiner
mailed a letter on October 16, 1997 stating that the supple-
mental reply brief has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3The Examiner, in response to the appeal brief, filed an
Examiner's answer on October 31, 1996. The Examiner filed a
supplemental answer on May 27, 1997.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007