Ex parte HARRIS et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-2429                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/323,215                                                  


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                
          rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper                 
          No. 6, mailed June 26, 1996) and the answer (Paper No. 11,                  
          mailed January 7, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning               
          in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10,               
          filed November 25, 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                 
          with respect to the claims under appeal.  Accordingly, we will              
          not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 under 35                
          U.S.C.                                                                      
          § 103.  Our reasoning for this determination follows.                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007