Appeal No. 1999-1134
Serial No. 08/334,465
Kaminski, when taken with Schneider.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
3 4
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief , Reply Brief , and
the Examiner's Answer for the respective details thereof.5
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 11, 13 and
22-24 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
in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
The Brief was received March 21, 19973
The Reply Brief was received July 3, 1997. The Examiner mailed a4
letter on July 23, 1997 stating that Appellants' Reply Brief had been entered
and considered but no further response by the Examiner was deemed necessary.
5The Examiner's Answer was mailed May 12, 1997
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007