Appeal No. 2001,0712
Application 08/148,887
Brief and the Examiner's Answer for the respective details3 4
thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 11-21
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 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Federal Circuit states
that “[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
3The Reply Brief was received July 19, 1996.
4The Examiner's Answer was mailed May 17, 1996. A letter
in response to the Reply Brief was mailed February 6, 2001 and
it stated that the reply brief had been entered and considered
but no further response by the Examiner was necessary.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007