Appeal No. 1999-1746 Page 4
Application No. 08/827,841
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hoegger '739 in view of Hoegger '364 and
Shea.
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. 42, mailed February 17, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 41, filed December 15, 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
claim, 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
with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007