Appeal No. 1999-2720
Application No. 08/580,965
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 1472, 223 USPQ at 788 (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 rejections of claims
1-4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tichy in view of Ambriola.
In addition, as the three remaining rejections include
the combination of Tichy and Ambriola as applied to claim 1,
and the Examiner has only applied the additional references to
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007