Appeal No. 1997-1755
Application 08/163,447
“Webster’s II”, New Riverside University Dictionary, page 978.
(Webster).
Claims 1 and 4 to 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Lee, Lin, Webster, Irwin and the admitted prior art.
Reference is made to Appellants’ brief and the Examiner's 2
answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the record before us, and we will
reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 4 to 8.
With respect to claims 1 and 4 to 8, the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. 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 express teachings or suggestions found in the
art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
2There are three papers, nos. 12, 18 and 23, marked as a
brief. Paper nos. 18 and 23 are the same, and they differ
from paper no. 12 only in the correction of the formalities.
Since the Examiner addressed paper no. 12 in his answer, and
since there is no difference on merits in later briefs, we
will refer to paper no. 12 as the brief for appeal purposes.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007