THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references.
Riccitiello et al. (Riccitiello (‘728)) 4,767,728 Aug. 30, 1988
Niebylski 5,045,399 Sep. 3, 1991
Riccitiello et al. (Riccitiello (‘278)) 5,130,278 Jul. 14, 1992
Zank et al. (Zank) 5,256,753 Oct. 26, 1993
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Riccitiello (‘728) or (‘278), Niebylski
and Zank, (Answer, page 3) .
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the
examiner and agree with the appellants that the aforementioned rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
examiner's rejections.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground,
of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability, ” whether on the grounds of anticipation or
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). In the case before us, the examiner relies upon four references, in the alternative, to
reject the claimed subject matter and establish either anticipation or a prima facie case of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007