Appeal No. 98-1457 Page 5
Application No. 08/530,006
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. 10, mailed April 16, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed August 29, 1997) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 9, filed January 29,
1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed June 16, 1997) 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 claims 1 through 15. Accordingly, we will 3
3In view of our determination that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007