Appeal No. 1998-1726
Application No. 08/681,117
Holmes (Holmes ‘125) 5,425,125 Jun.. 13, 1995
THE REJECTION
The Examiner entered the following ground of rejection:
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Holmes ‘809. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Holmes ‘125. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the respective positions
advanced by Appellants and the Examiner, and agree with the Appellants that each of
the rejections of claims 1-8 is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse each of the
rejections.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As an initial matter, we note the Holmes ‘125 reference is based on application
serial number 08/199,036 which is a divisional of application serial number
07/748,795 which is now U.S. Patent 5,328,809. Thus, Holmes ‘125 has same
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007