Appeal No. 1995-2698
Application 07/660,807
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986):
If a prima facie case is made in the first instance, and if the applicant
comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by
experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the
matter are to be reweighed. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, the examiner has not properly discharged his responsibilities in evaluating
appellant’s evidence of nonobviousness. This board serves a board of review.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Without a substantative response to appellant’s evidence of
nonobviousness, the examiner’s position is not amenable to review. As a
consequence, we will reverse the two pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Price, Heneveld, Cooper, De Witt & Litton
695 Kenmoor, S.E.
P.O. Box 2567
Grand Rapids, MI 49501
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007