Appeal No. 1996-3867
Application No. 08/153,239
lines 32-37, page 6, lines 38-45 and page 11, lines 32-39.
Accordingly, we agree with appellants that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since no prima facie case of obviousness is established, we
need not address the sufficiency of unexpected results
referred to by the examiner, but not mentioned by appellants.
See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
OTHER ISSUE
U.S. Patent Nos. 4,842,900 and 3,661,605 and published
Japanese Patent Application 60/85929 referred to at page 2 of
the specification appear to be facially more relevant than
Glancy.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007