Ex parte LUCEY - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1998-0912                                                        
          Application 08/413,521                                                      

          line 10, should be a “,”.  In claim 1, last line, “the                      
          condensate” has no antecedent.  In claim 6, “top of the                     
          package” should be “top of the container”, “so that on the                  
          contamination” should be “so that on contamination”, and “by a              
          condensate,” should be “by the condensate,”.  We also note the              
          amendment to claim 2, changing “assembly” to “circuit” has not              
          been physically entered.                                                    
                    After a careful review of the evidence before us, we              
          will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 10 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 reasonable teachings or suggestions                
          found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the                 
          artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions.  In re                  
          Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                
          "Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed                    
          invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007