Ex parte HUBER et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2000-0865                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/910,822                                                  


          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takasaki in view of              
          Sakaki.                                                                     


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                
          rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 17,                  
          mailed January 7, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning               
          in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15,               
          filed December 13, 1999) for the appellants' arguments                      
          thereagainst.                                                               


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellants 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              
          not sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 1 to 4, 7 to                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007