Appeal No. 1999-0890
Application 07/575,096
Claims 17, 19-24, 26, 27, 53-60 and 70-118 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkley when
taken with Iggulden.
Claims 119-123 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dunkley when taken with Iggulden and Johnston.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief2 and Supplemental Appeal
Brief3, and the Examiner's Answer4 for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 17, 19-24, 26,
27, 53-60, and 70-123 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
2The Brief was received June 28, 1996.
3The Supplemental Brief was received May 11, 2001.
4The Examiner's Answer was mailed March 3, 1998. Contrary
to the requirements of MPEP 1208 the Examiner incorporates in his
Answer (page 3, section 9) the statements of the grounds of
rejection by referencing two prior actions (paper numbers 27 and
23). As the final rejection (paper number 27) incorporates by
reference the rejections set forth in the preceding Office action
(paper number 23), and the basis of the Examiner's rejections are
clear, this case was not remanded to the Examiner to take
corrective action.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007