Appeal No. 1997-2585
Application 07/930,880
facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ
785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296
F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8
(CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, our reviewing court states
in Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788, the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1 . . . (1966), focused on
the procedural and evidentiary processes in
reaching a conclusion under section 103.
As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham
is interpreted as continuing to place the
"burden of proof on the Patent Office which
requires it to produce the factual basis
for its rejection of an application under
sections 102 and 103" [citing In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967)].
After a review of the teachings in Lillquist, we
fail to find a single silicon detector with output signals
corresponding to both short wavelength and visible colored
light radiation as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. We
disagree with the Examiner that Appellant’s claimed limitation
of “visible colored light” lacks patentable weight and clearly
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007