Appeal No. 2000-1250
Application No. 08/662,077 Page 4
Claims 7-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ramstrom in view of Astmann and further in view
of Orfali.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
November 9, 1999) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
13, filed October 25, 1999) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst. Only those arguments actually made by appellants
have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
appellants could have made but chose not to make in the brief
have not been considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007