Appeal No. 98-2787
Application 08/554,640
would perform equally well with the positioning of
the elastics of Roessler et al.”
Rather than further reiterate the examiner's position on
the above rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the rejection, we refer
to pages 3 and 4 of the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13) and
to pages 8 through 16 of appellants’ brief (Paper No. 12) for
the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reviewing the obviousness issue raised in this appeal,
we have carefully considered appellants’ specification and
claims, the applied references, and the respective viewpoints
advanced by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have come to the conclusion, for the reasons
which follow, that the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims is not well founded, and that the evidence relied upon
by the examiner does not support a conclusion of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claims 1 through 20 on
appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007