Ex parte JEZEQUEL et al. - Page 3




          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