Appeal No. 1997-3027
Application 08/301,926
patenting rejection of claim 1 was withdrawn upon the filing
of a terminal disclaimer, note Advisory Action, Paper No. 10.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to 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 reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner reasons that APA (Appellants’ Figure 2)
teaches the claimed invention except for the use of two
Schottky diodes, instead of one. Fraser is then cited for the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007