Appeal No. 1999-1565
Application No. 08/494,227
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132
USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148
USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, our reviewing
court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1471-72, 223 USPQ
785 at 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966), focused on the procedural and
evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion under
Section 103. As adapted to ex parte procedure,
Graham is interpreted as continuing to place the
"burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires
it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of
an application under section 102 and 103". Citing
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967).
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6-10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kattner when taken with Suzuki.
In addition, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
2, 5, 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kattner when taken with Suzuki and Pond, as Pond does not
provide the adapter plate claim limitations found absent in
the above analysis of the parent claims, and the Examiner has
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007