Ex parte PARK - Page 5




               Appeal No. 1998-1469                                                                                                
               Application No. 08/351,045                                                                                          




               the examiner (Paper No. 44, mailed February 27, 1997) the examiner stated that the January 14,                      

               1997 amendment had been entered, and that in view of the amendment, the new ground of rejection                     

               was withdrawn.  We note that neither the reply brief nor either of the supplemental reply briefs contains           

               an appendix listing a copy of the amended claims currently before the Board on appeal as required by                

               37 CFR 1.192(c)(9).  However, the record is clear as to what are the proper claims on appeal.                      

                                                            OPINION                                                                

                       In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant's             

               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 rejections of               

               claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                                                                  

                       Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 16-19, 26 and 28 rejected under                         

               35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Ichijo, the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie               

               case of obviousness.  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. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d              

               989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                                                                           




                                                               -5-                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007