Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
with regard to claim 9 and citing Rochkind and Katz with regard
to claims 12 and 13. 2
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be reversed
because the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter.
2The examiner never explicitly includes a statement in the
answer regarding the grounds of rejection against claims 12 and
13 but it is clear from the final rejection, answer and
appellants’ brief that these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103 over Rochkind and Katz.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007