Appeal No. 2003-1941
Application No. 09/981,100 Page 3
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over APA in view of Groll. Claims 4-7 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over APA
in view of Groll and Porter.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon consideration of the respective positions advanced by
appellant and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellant’s position 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 any
of the examiner’s stated rejections.
The examiner basically acknowledges (and appellant agrees)
that the applied APA does not disclose that an oxide layer is
maintained on the metal component surfaces that are bonded
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007