Appeal No. 1997-2910
Application 08/421,387
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the 2
answers for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
6 and 7 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 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determin-
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on June 10, 1996.
Appellant filed a reply brief on February 24, 1997. The
Exami-ner responded to Appellant's reply brief with a supple-
mental Examiner's answer on December 8, 1998. Thus, the reply
brief has been entered and considered by the Examiner and is
properly before us for our consideration.
3The Examiner responded to the appeal brief with an
Examiner's answer on December 20, 1996. The Examiner re-
sponded to the reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's
answer on December 8, 1998.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007