Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
June 26, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 10,
filed April 1, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed August
2, 1996) 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
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness only
with respect to claim 51. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 18 through 20, 23,
26, 27, 29, 30, 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning
for this determination follows.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007