Appeal No. 1997-0726 Page 4
Application No. 08/329,398
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed July 5, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 12, filed February 20, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 15, filed August 22, 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
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 5
under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007