Appeal No. 1997-1249
Application 08/179,601
Capasso 4,486,765 Dec. 4, 1984
Doehler et al. (Doehler) 4,839,714 Jun. 13,
1989
Danos 4,891,521 Jan. 2, 1990
Yamazaki et al.(Yamazaki) 4,917,474 Apr. 17, 1990
Biefeld et al. (Biefeld) 4,947,223 Aug.
7, 1990
Claims 2 through 4, 13 and 28 through 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Capasso,
Biefeld, Doehler and Yamazaki, considered together.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as1
being unpatentable over Capasso, Biefeld, Doehler and
Yamazaki, and further in view of Danos.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief and
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 4, 11 through 13
and 28 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
From the language of the claims, it appears that this rejection is directed to claim 4 instead of1
claim 11.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007