Appeal No. 2000-0865 Page 4
Application No. 08/910,822
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takasaki in view of
Sakaki.
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. 17,
mailed January 7, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15,
filed December 13, 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
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 1 to 4, 7 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007