Appeal No. 1999-1565
Application No. 08/494,227
103 as being unpatentable over Kattner and Suzuki and Pond.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Examiner's 2
Answer for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-
10, 12 and 13 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 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Federal Circuit states
1In the final rejection (Paper No., 15) the Examiner
objected under 35 U.S.C. § 132 to the amendment received
November 26, 1997, because it introduces new matter into the
disclosure. As Appellants canceled the requisite material by
an amendment received November 2, 1998, and this amendment was
entered as noted by the Advisory Action mailed November 24,
1998, this matter is no longer at issue.
2The Brief was received December 24, 1998.
3The Examiner's Answer was mailed March 15, 1999.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007