Appeal No. 1997-0486
Application 08/417,290
obviousness of the invention recited in any of appellants’
claims. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejections.2
Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
we need not address the experimental results. 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).
2 The examiner does not rely upon Fujita for a teaching
which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Cullinan and
Yamada.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007