Appeal No. 1998-2436
Application 08/550,667
The examiner has not explained how appellants’
filament, as depicted in Figure 2, is taught by Hisaaki,
nor has the examiner explained why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have particularly chosen appellants’
shaped filament in view of Hisaaki. Whether or not
Hisaaki discloses a range of shapes from rectangular to
oval, the examiner has not explained how such a range of
shapes would necessarily include the shape depicted in
appellants’ figure 2. Alternatively, the examiner has
not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have altered the shape disclosed in Hisaaki in order to
achieve appellants' claimed shape as depicted in Figure
2. We note that the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Hence, we conclude the examiner has not met
his burden.
Accordingly, we reverse each of the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections.
V. Other issues
We note that appellants discuss, in their reply
brief, the issue of the Section 132 objections to new
matter, and
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007