Appeal No. 1997-1425
Application No. 08/520,228
Courtney et al. 5,139,339 Aug. 18, 1992
Oshida 1 JP 5-229219 Sep. 7, 1993
Claims 24 through 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Oshida in view of Wong in further
view of Courtney and Jakeman.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the 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 24 through 33 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
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in
the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
1For this reference we have relied upon a translation
obtained by the PTO in July, 1996, a copy of which is included
in the application file.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007