Appeal No. 2001-1618
Application No. 08/960,565
memory metal plastically deforming under normal test or burn-in
contact loading and having a transition temperature at or above
the burn-in temperature, or said shape memory metal in
combination with another metal.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Brandt et al. (Brandt) 5,488,314 Jan. 30, 1996
Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Brandt.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed October 31, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No. 15,
filed August 22, 2000) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17, filed
December 15, 2000) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 22
substantially for the reasons presented by appellants in the
Brief and Reply Brief, as further amplified below.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007