Appeal No. 1996-3587
Application 08/401,043
1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994), quoting Orthokinetics Inc v. Safety Travel Chairs
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The examiner, in stating the rejection, has set forth only conclusions without supporting reasons2
why those skilled in the art would not understand what is claimed when the claims are read in light of
the specification. Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case, we reverse the rejection.
2While the examiner states that the ground of rejection is set forth in “paper number 8” (answer, page
2), which is the final rejection mailed September 28, 1995, the same is found instead on page 3 of the
Office action of June 7, 1995 (Paper No. 5) as stated in Paper No. 8 (page 2). We have not
considered the last two sentences on page 3 of Paper No. 5, which concern “a series” and “a specie,”
as applicable to the appealed claims because such terms do not appear in these claims. With respect to
such subject matter, see appellants’ specification, e.g., page 5.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007