Appeal No. 2000-0856 Page 3
Application No. 08/676,623
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed September 16, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper
No. 18, filed October 18, 1998) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and 2
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
with respect to the claim under appeal. Accordingly, we will
2The following change to the specification is suggested:
On page 21, line 6, amend "Figure 4" to read --Figure 3--
since Figure 3 depicts the second embodiment of the invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007