Appeal No. 2005-0516 Page 3
Application No. 10/199,803
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
Admitted Prior Art in view of Eisele and Allen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed May 24, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed March 3, 2004) 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, 3 to 12 and 14 to 24 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 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007