Appeal No. 1996-3880 Page 3
Application No. 08/305,441
Claims 1 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Chapman,
Muliterno, Okumura and Beder.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed April 11, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 11, filed November 20, 1995) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant 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
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007