Appeal No. 2000-0301 Page 3
Application No. 08/690,402
Claims 1 and 4 to 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Enloe in view of Lawson, Foreman,
Igaue and Robertson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 30,
mailed April 14, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the substitute appeal
brief (Paper No. 29, filed January 4, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 31, filed June 14, 1999) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007