Appeal No. 2000-1948 Page 3
Application No. 08/751,087
Claims 2 to 5, 12, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over any of Lukic, or
Braunschweiler or Robinson in view of Williams.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
12, mailed January 7, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed December 2, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 17,
filed September 21, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed
February 7, 2000) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007