Ex parte HERSHENSON - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1997-2133                                                                                                                
                 Application 08/172,507                                                                                                              





                                                                    OPINION                                                                          
                          In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                                        
                 appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective                                    
                 positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.                                                                            
                          Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                                          
                 appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer                                           
                 (Paper No. 20, mailed December 6, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support                                            
                 of the rejection, and to the appellant’s brief  (Paper No. 18, filed September 18, 1996) for the                                    
                 appellant’s arguments thereagainst.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                                                    
                 determinations which follow.                                                                                                        


                                                          DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                         
                 35 U.S.C. 103                                                                                                                       
                          Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Zsebo taken                                           
                 with Lee, Audhya and Morimoto.                                                                                                      
                          In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.  103, the examiner bears the initial burden of                                        
                 presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.  See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,                                              



                                                                         3                                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007