Appeal No. 96-1501
Application No. 08/172,517
Claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Walker and
Appellants' admitted prior art.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Walker, Appellants'
admitted prior art and Marzola.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above
rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants, we refer to pages 4 through 12 of
the examiner's answer, to the supplemental answer, to pages 6
through 12 of the appellants' brief, to the reply brief, and to
the supplemental reply brief for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art, and to the respective positions advanced
by the appellants and by 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 all claims on appeal.
Our reasoning for this determination follows.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007