Ex parte KELLEY - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1999-1975                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/963,460                                                  


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted                 
          rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 17,                   
          mailed November 23, 1998) for the examiner's complete                       
          reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper              
          No. 15, filed October 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                  
          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 the claim under appeal.  Accordingly, we will               
          not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35                    
          U.S.C.                                                                      
          § 103.  Our reasoning for this determination follows.                       









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007