Appeal No. 2001-0777
Application No. 09/652,893 Page 3
Claims 14-17, 19-21, 23-26 and 46-49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese patent
abstract 58-151517 and Yoshii taken collectively in view of
Yamaguchi and Livesay (answer, pages 4-7 and supplemental
answer).2 In rejecting claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner additionally relies on Umemura (answer, page 7).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner with
respect to the rejections that remain before us for review, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants in so far as the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745
2 The examiner has corrected the record (Paper No. 30) to
clarify that both the Japanese patent abstract of 58-151517 and
Yoshii (published Japanese patent application) were being applied
as evidence of obviousness by the examiner. Appellants have
acknowledged their awareness of the evidence being relied upon by
the examiner. See Paper No. 31.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007