Appeal No. 1998-1773 Page 4
Application No. 08/609,303
Claims 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 36, 38, 43, 45 and 50 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Brunker in view of Schantz and Dohi.
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. 13, mailed January 12, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 11, filed December 19, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14, filed March 13, 1998) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007