Appeal No. 1999-0157
Application No. 08/113,310
Claims 2, 3, 11 through 16, 18 and 24 through 27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moo-
Young in view of Christ.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Moo-Young in view of Christ and Wilson.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer with the 1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 11
through 16, 18 and 23 through 27 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
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on August 21, 1997.
Appellant filed a reply brief on December 10, 1997. The
Examiner mailed an office communication on March 10, 1998
stating that the reply brief had been entered and considered
but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007