Appeal No. 1997-3811 Page 4
Application No. 08/357,845
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pirkle ‘293. Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Pirkle ‘440 or Pirkle ‘293,
each in view of admitted prior art set forth at pages 1-5 and
the penultimate
full paragraph of page 8 of appellants’ specification and
Cahnmann. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pirkle ‘440 or Pirkle ‘293, each in
view of admitted prior art set forth at pages 1-5 and the
penultimate full paragraph of page 8 of appellants’
specification, Cahnmann, that which is admitted to be old in
the last paragraph of page 17 of the specification and the
Pirkle article.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner,
we find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness or anticipation. Accordingly,
we will not sustain any of the examiner's rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007