Ex parte EOM et al. - Page 4




              Appeal No. 1998-0938                                                                                       
              Application 08/377,532                                                                                     


                     The examiner relies on the following references:                                                    
                     Koshiishi            4,652,933             Mar. 24, 1987                                            
                     Seo                  5,383,030             Jan. 17, 1995                                            
                     Claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                       
              unpatentable over Seo in view of Koshiishi.  Claims 2, 5, 6 and 20 through 22 stand                        
              rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Koshiishi and                     
              the examiner's notice of well-known prior art.                                                             
                     Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellants and the examiner, reference is                    
                                 1              2                                                                        
              made to the briefs  and answers  for the respective details thereof.                                       
                                                       OPINION                                                           

                     We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 22 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 express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by                    
              implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d                          




                     1Appellants filed an appeal brief on January 24, 1997.  Appellants filed a reply brief on July 7, 1997.
              The examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental examiner's answer dated October 28, 1997,    
              thereby considering and entering the reply brief.  Appellants filed a supplemental reply brief on January 2,
              1998.  The examiner responded to the supplemental reply brief with a letter on January 14, 1998 stating that
              the reply brief has been entered and considered.                                                           
                     2The examiner mailed an examiner's answer on May 7, 1997.                                           
                                                           4                                                             





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007