Appeal No. 1997-1436 Page 4
Application No. 08/419,174
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. 14, mailed June 27, 1996) and response to reply brief
(Paper No. 16, mailed September 27, 1996) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed May 6, 1996) and
response to examiner's answer (i.e., reply brief) (Paper No.
15, filed August 27, 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 13 and 14 under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007