Appeal No. 1999-1891
Application No. 08/421,089
Winstel et al. (Winstel) (Germany) 2,422,330 3 Nov. 13,
1975
Claims 4-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Winstel in view of Hamakawa.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 4
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
In an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
an Examiner is under a burden to make out a prima facie case
of obviousness. If that burden is met, the burden of going
forward then shifts to the Applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
3An English translation of this patent is enclosed with
this decision.
4A supplemental brief, Paper No. 19, was filed merely to
correct the formalities noted in the principal brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007