Appeal No. 1997-2936
Application No. 08/360,335
Page 6
related to each other by the teachings of the reference. In re
Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 590, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972).
In view of the above, we find that the examiner has not met
his burden required for anticipation. We note that the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability on any
ground rests with the examiner. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Hence, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1-4, 7 and 9.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
With regard to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 and the
rejection of claim 8, because Mani fails as discussed above, and
because Oda does not cure the deficiencies of Mani, we reverse
these rejections also.
III. Other Issues
In the event of further prosecution, we strongly recommend
that both appellants and the examiner should consider the issue
of obviousness of claims 1-4, 7, and 9 in view of Mani, viz. the
use of Figure 2 as the water splitter in Figure 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007