Appeal No. 1997-3239
Application 08/312,854
Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of IEEE.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view
of IEEE and Van Brunt.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art in view of
IEEE and Oprescu.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 6 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 express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007