Appeal No. 2003-0291 Page 3
Application No. 09/569,074
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hasegawa in view of Kitta.
Claims 10, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Pandey.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed February 7, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed
August 7, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed June 11, 2002) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007