Appeal No. 98-0130 Page 4
Application No. 08/631,793
(Paper No. 27, filed September 4, 1997) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15-17, 19-24, and 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Snow in view of Gillett.
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).
Turning first to claim 1, appellants assert (brief, pages
11 and 12) that :
Claim 1 requires primary-side circuitry and
secondary-side circuit assemblies which are mechanically
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007