Appeal No. 1998-0823
Application 08/630,542
and either Minami or Kleinberg.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 22, 28, and 29 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, we will
sustain
the rejection of these claims; but we will reverse the
rejection of the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons
set forth infra.
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 reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007