Appeal No. 95-4113
Application No. 08/124,334
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103 rejections, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed
April 20, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14,
filed March 28, 1995) 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 appealed claims. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 21, 22,
23 and 26 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for
this determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007