Appeal No. 1996-0841
Application No. 07/928,443
provided on a common substrate in a planar
arrangement.1
The examiner has relied only on Clifford and Firth to
establish obviousness of the broadest appealed subject matter
which is embraced by all of the claims on appeal. Thus, the
dispositive question here is whether the combined disclosures
of Clifford and Firth would have suggested to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to employ a catalytically inactive
beta-gallium oxide film together with a catalytically active
material to form at least one of the individual sensor
elements for detecting individual gas constituents in a gas
mixture. Compare Answer, pages 4-7, with Brief, pages 6-11.
We answer this question in the negative.
It is well settled that “the examiner bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The burden of producing a factual basis to support a
Section 103 rejection rests on the examiner. In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967).
1See claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007