Appeal No. 96-3192 Page 4
Application No. 08/247,672
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Brezinski,
Sollinger and Warner, and further in view of Kuhnel.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed April 16, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 14, filed March 18, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed June 17, 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
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007