Appeal No. 2000-0112 Page 6
Application No. 08/935,005
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed August
16, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 18,
filed July 12, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed
September 10, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, 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
rejections of claims 5, 6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our
reasoning for this determination follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007