Appeal No. 1997-1663 Page 3
Application No. 08/448,053
(filed Dec. 15,
1992)
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Saito, Mumaw or Frame. Claims 1-3
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Saitou.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the stated
rejections.
It is well settled that the examiner bears the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or
obviousness. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, when relying upon
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007