Appeal No. 1998-1539 Application No. 08/683,186 identify what is recited in the claims and state, generally, that the feature is “neither taught nor suggested in the references” (principal brief-page 5), the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of obviousness is the examiner’s. Since the examiner pays no attention to the dependent claims, we cannot say that a prima facie case has been set forth. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the examiner’s lack of a specific rationale for rejecting such claims. We have sustained the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we have not sustained the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Errol A. Krass ) 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007