Appeal No. 95-3510
Application No. 08/032,405
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 37, mailed
February 21, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper
No. 36, filed December 30, 1994) and reply brief (Paper No. 39,
filed April 21, 1995) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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 claims 1 through 29, 31 through 45 and 47 through 51.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections of
claims 1 through 29, 31 through 45 and 47 through 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007