Appeal No. 1996-1244 Page 5
Application No. 08/082,782
claims. On this point, the examiner's unsubstantiated opinion
(answer, page 3) regarding the ordinary skill in the art and
obviousness of utilizing more than one card feeding stack in
the magnetic strip application device of Mintz has no readily
apparent bearing, at least to us, on the patentability of the
dissimilar claimed structure at issue herein. The Nakamura
patent as additionally applied by the examiner to claims 9 and
21 does not cure the above-noted deficiency. We will not
further burden this record with a discussion of other claimed
limitations which have not even been addressed in the
examiner's rejections.
In our view, the examiner's stated rejections fall
significantly short of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness for the reasons set forth in appellant's briefs
and above. We note that “[w]here the legal conclusion [of
obviousness] is not supported by facts it cannot stand.” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007