Appeal No. 2001-0882 Page 3
Application No. 08/950,965
We refer to appellants’ briefs and to the examiner’s answer
for an exposition of the respective viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the rejections.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ viewpoint in that 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 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223
USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejections.
The examiner has determined that Inoue ‘029 discloses a
particulate material sintering and consolidation system
including, inter alia, a die with associated punches, a power
source and a feedback control (servo control 312(e) as shown in
figure 51), which control is coupled to the punches (answer,
1 The examiner also refers to element 362 of figure 2 of
Inoue ‘029 at page 3 of the answer albeit figure 2 of that
reference does not have such a legend associated therewith.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007