Appeal No. 1996-1244 Page 4 Application No. 08/082,782 We have carefully reviewed the respective positions presented by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement with appellant's position in almost every regard and hence reach the determination that the examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons advanced by appellant , and we add 2 the following primarily for emphasis. The examiner, having correctly determined that the appealed claims are drawn to an apparatus, inexplicably fails to provide a colorably rationale explanation as to how Mintz alone or together with Nakamura would have suggested the3 claimed apparatus including, inter alia, a plurality of containers of supports of the foils and a removal or support discharge station as clearly called for by all of the appealed 2Since we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, we do not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the rebuttal evidence furnished in the declaration of Armando Baesse. In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 3The combination of Nakamura and Mintz is only applicable to the examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 21.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007