Appeal No. 1997-0091 Page 4
Application No. 08/115,530
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wenger in view of Bosher,
Kuster and Bossard.
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. 18,
mailed April 30, 1996) and the response to the appellants'
reply brief (Paper No. 20, mailed July 30, 1996) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and
to the brief (Paper No. 17, filed February 12, 1996) and reply
brief (Paper No. 19, filed June 27, 1996) 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