Appeal No. 1999-0574
Application No. 08/583,588
103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Zerillo and
the admitted prior art in view of Clemmons.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon does not support the
rejections as formulated by the examiner. Accordingly, we
reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007