Appeal No. 2002-0465
Application No. 09/432,610 Page 3
We limit our review to the two rejections advanced by the
examiner. In this regard, claims 28, 29 and 32-37 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view
of Brown. Claims 28-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jones in view of Brown.
Rather than reiterating the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner’s answer and to
appellant’s briefs for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner,
we find ourselves in agreement with appellant insofar as the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007