Appeal No. 1997-3181
Application No. 08/304,345
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 1
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 9 and 11 through
20 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
we reverse.
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 express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 5, 1996 which
was deemed defective by the Examiner for including an
incorrect copy of claims in the Appendix. Appellants filed an
amended appeal brief on October 11, 1996 which was entered.
On March 27, 2000, Appellants filed an amended Appendix to the
Appeal Brief. All references to the brief and the claims made
hereinafter are to those filed October 11, 1996 and March 27,
2000, respectively.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007