Board reverses examiner for lack of prima facie case in Ex parte ZAWACKI
Of the prima facie case:
Because the Examiner does not establish how Ash (or Quinn) discloses or suggests a catheter comprising “a generally cylindrical body enclosing a first and second lumen separated by a generally planar septum,” as recited in claims 1 and 7, the Examiner fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness of these two independent claims, as well as claims 2 and 4-6, which depend on claim 1. Because the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability in the first instance, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 must be reversed. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 as obvious over Ash in view of Quinn. We also reverse the rejection of claim 3 as obvious over Ash in view of Quinn, further in view of Bacich.
There is no citation to KSR.