Appeal No. 1997-0300
Application 08/138,790
Claims 11 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.2
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Shimp and Ardini.
Rather then reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the 3
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 11
through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
2It is noted that the Examiner and Appellants are in
disagreement as to whether Claims 11 and 16 contain the word
“length” or “width.” As there are no rejections or amendments
addressing this language on the record, there is no issue
before us concerning this claim language. Accordingly, this
opinion addresses the claims as submitted by Appellants in the
January 10, 1996 appeal brief as appendix A. Nonetheless, our
decision concerning the rejection on appeal does not rely upon
an interpretation of the disputed claim language.
3 Appellants filed an appeal brief on January 10, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on May 20, 1996. On November
1, 1996, the Examiner mailed a communication stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007