Appeal No. 1998-1504
Application 08/373,718
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Pitasi 4,682,269 Jul. 21, 1987
Davidson et al. 5,216,580 Jun. 1, 1993
Lin et al. 5,450,283 Sep. 12, 1995
(filed Jan. 10, 1994)
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Pitasi.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lin in view of Pitasi, and further in
view of Davidson.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief
and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 11 and 13
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007