Ex parte BULFER - Page 8




          Appeal No. 1998-2705                                                        
          Application No. 08/867-773                                                  


          this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case.  In re              
          Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.                
          Cir. 1984);  In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132                
          USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148                  
          USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).  Our reviewing court states in                
          In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.                 
          1984) the following:                                                        
               The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383                     
               U.S. 1 (1966), focused on the procedural and                           
               evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion under                   
               Section 103.  As adapted to ex parte procedure,                        
               Graham is interpreted as continuing to place the                       
               "burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires                   
               it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of                   
               an application under section 102 and 103".  Citing                     
               In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177                   
               (CCPA 1967).                                                           
               In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the                    
          rejection of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                      
          Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.                           
                                      REVERSED                                        
                                                                                     

                    KENNETH W. HAIRSTON           )                                   
                    Administrative Patent Judge  )                                    
                                                  )                                   
                                                  )                                   
                                          8                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007