Appeal No. 1997-2164
Application No. 08/277,468
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers for 2 3
the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 9
and 11 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case. 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
prior art or by the implication contained in such teachings or
suggestions.
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir.
2Appellants filed an Appeal brief on April 18, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on September 26, 1996. On
December 9, 1996, the Examiner mailed a supplemental
Examiner’s answer in response to the reply brief. Appellants
filed a reply to the supplemental Examiner’s answer on January
14, 1997. On March 31, 1997, the Examiner mailed a
communication stating that the Appellants' reply to the
supplemental Examiner's answer had been entered and
considered.
3The Examiner mailed an Examiner's answer on July 23,
1996. On December 9, 1996, the Examiner mailed a supplemental
Examiner's answer in response to Appellants' reply brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007