Appeal No. 1999-2698
Application 08/560,108
unpatentable over Bajura in view of Deering and Ritchey and
Ruoff.4
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
5 6
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief , Reply Brief , and
the Examiner's Answer for the respective details thereof.7
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 1-11, 13 and
15-22 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
4In the final rejection (paper no. 26) the Examiner
rejected claims 1-5, 10, 13, 15, 18-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for the specification failing to
support specific limitations of claim 1. As the Examiner
withdrew this rejection at section 14 of the Examiner's Answer
this matter is no longer at issue.
5The Brief was received June 4, 1998.
6The Reply Brief was received October 16, 1998. The
Examiner mailed a letter December 18, 1998 stating that
Appellant's Reply Brief had been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner was deemed necessary.
7The Examiner's Answer was mailed August 11, 1998.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007