Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
Claims 9, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jones, Rosen and Chung.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 2 3
respective details thereof.
Opinion
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10 and 13
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
1 This rejection is a “new ground of rejection” made in
the October 9, 1996 Examiner’s answer. The rejection of
claims 9, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unpatentable over
Jones as set forth in the final rejection has been withdrawn
as identified in the March 3, 1998 supplemental Examiner’s
answer.
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 26, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on December 9, 1996 in response
to the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection. Appellants filed
a supplemental reply brief on May 6, 1997. On May 12, 1997
the Examiner mailed a communication stating that the
supplemental reply brief has been entered and considered.
3The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s answer on October 9,
1996. On March 3, 1997 the Examiner mailed a supplemental
Examiner’s answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007