Appeal No. 1996-4119
Application No. 08/261,406
(CCPA 1980). We find no evidence of record that this result effective variable is not
within the ordinary skill of the art, or that an unexpected result was obtained.
Therefore, in our opinion, the examiner met her burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 1714
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng and
Harris.
Appellants do not argue the merits of the rejection of claims 9-16, 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng and Harris
as applied to claims15 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 1716 and 2217 and further in view of Neurath and
Yip. Appellants also do not argue the merits of the rejection of claim 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng,
Harris, Neurath and Yip as applied to claims 9-16, 18 and 19, and further in view of
Bischoff.
Therefore, under these circumstances, having found, supra, the examiner
met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 1718 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
14 See supra, n.1.
15 See supra, n.8.
16 See supra, n.1.
17 See supra, n.10.
18 See supra, n.1.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007