Appeal No. 1997-2140
Application 08/357,820
O’Connell, Murphy, Liotta, Hirel and Thomas. The underlying rationale of the rejection
corresponds to that of claim 3, and suffers from the same infirmity. Again, we find that the
examiner’s initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
met, and the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CAROL A. SPIEGEL )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
TONI R. SCHEINER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ATTN: Roger A. Williams
G. D. Searle & Company
Corporate Patent Law Department
P. O. Box 5110
Chicago IL 60680-5110
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 3, 2007