Appeal No. 1997-4345
Application No. 08/292,670
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Tong.
Finally, claims 1 through 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Georges.
OPINION
None of the rejections before us on this appeal can be
sustained.
With regard to the examiner’s section 112 rejection, we
do not perceive the appealed claims to be offensive to any of
the requirements set forth in the first and second paragraphs
of this statute. More significantly, the examiner’s comments
regarding this rejection plainly are inadequate to carry his
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Indeed, these comments
are purely conclusionary and lack any explanation of
reasonable specificity as to why the appealed claims are
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007