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. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007