Appeal No. 96-3169 3
Application No. 08/271,273
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13 through 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Willemse.
Claims 1 through 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13 through 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volpenhein.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the aforementioned rejections of
claims 1 through 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13 through 23 are not well founded.
Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.
The Rejections under § 103.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability," whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, there are two
rejections over Willemse and Volpenhein respectively. The examiner’s position is
essentially the same with respect to each rejection. The examiner admits that the
claimed subject mater differs from the prior art in the recitation of "providing a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007