Appeal No. 2005-1980 Page 4
Application No. 10/373,385
Claims 1 to 6, 9 to 15 and 31 to 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lencoski in view of Waechter.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lencoski in view of Waechter and Mansfield.
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 December 22, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed November 23, 2004) and reply brief (filed February 24,
2005) 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007