Appeal No. 1997-1022 Page 4
Application No. 08/368,359
Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Oram in view of Mann and Moretz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed November 1, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 15, filed September 24, 1996) 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, 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 not sustain the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007