Appeal No. 2001-0554
Application No. 08/621,937
Rather that repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
The manner in which the examiner has asserted the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter on appeal in the two
stated rejections leads us to conclude that the examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness within
35 U.S.C. § 103. According to the statements of the two
rejections at page 3 of the answer, the examiner has not met the
burden on the examiner as set forth in MPEP 1208 which makes
certain requirements for examiners setting forth rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner has not pointed out where each of
the specific limitations recited in the rejected claims is found
in each of the respective pieces of applied prior art in the
rejections and identified the differences between the rejected
claims and the prior art relied on. The rationale of
combinability is conclusory. The statement of the rejection has
not treated any dependent claim nor distinguished between the
independent claims, 1, 18, 22, 23 and 25.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007