Appeal No. 2003-1778 Page 3
Application No. 08/988,292
Claims 1-5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18-20, 28 and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lerner. Claims
1, 8, 10, 11 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kellett. Claim 12 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lerner in view of
Gerstel.
We refer to the 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 consideration 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 the
examiner that each of Kellett and Lerner furnish sufficient
evidence to make out a prima facie case of anticipation.
However, we agree with appellants’ position in so far as the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 12.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s § 102(b) rejections but
reverse the examiner’s stated § 103(a) rejection.
As our initial inquiry into a review of the examiner’s
rejections, we must analyze the claimed language to determine the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007