Appeal No. 2002-1643 Page 3
Application No. 09/140,700
Claims 24 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Murphy in view of Jacobson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 29, mailed January 22, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 28, filed December 14, 2001) 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 not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 24 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for
this determination follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007