Appeal No. 1998-1962 Page 4
Application No. 08/213,933
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and
to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed August 29, 1996)
and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed October 14, 1997) 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 reference , and to the 3
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 examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 10
3In the answer (p. 6), the examiner refers to prior art
references to Geesaman and Challis '904. We have not
considered these references since prior art evidence that is
relied upon must be positively set forth in the statement of
the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342, 166 USPQ
406, 407 (CCPA 1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007