Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 4
Application No. 08/852,829
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Puskorius '700 in
view of Keeler.
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. 10,
mailed July 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9,
filed June 7, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
September 7, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007