For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not carried the burden
of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness of the appellants’
claimed invention.2
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-4, 6-8, 13-15, 17-21, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Cooper, claims 28-30 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cooper in view
of Eisner, and claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cooper in view of Eisner and
McCarthy, are reversed.
2 The examiner does not rely upon Eisner or McCarthy for
any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Cooper.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007