Appeal No. 97-2147 Page 6
Application No. 08/512,477
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 7, mailed May 7, 1996), the examiner's answer (Paper No.
13, mailed November 12, 1996) and both supplemental examiner's
answers (Paper No. 15 and 18, mailed January 28, 1997 and
April 2, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 12, filed October 9, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 14,
filed January 8, 1997) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007