Appeal No. 96-1879
Application 08/006,194
OPINION
At the outset we note that, contrary to the examiner's
statement on page 2 of the answer, the copy of the claims
appearing in the appendix to the appellants' brief is not a
correct copy of the claims. Firstly, that copy does not include
the amendments to claims 20, 34 through 37 and 39 through 41, nor
cancellation of claim 27, as per the amendment filed August 15,
1994 (Paper No. 34). Secondly, the copy of claim 38 appearing in
the appendix incorrectly recites "a gap of 0.05 to 0.2 mm" in the
last line thereof. We note that while independent claims 20, 26
and 28 were amended subsequent to final rejection (Paper No 29,
dated April 11, 1994) to incorporate this recitation, claim 38
was not.
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007