Appeal No. 1997-2632
Application No. 08/163,902
at page 5, lines 8-10 of the Brief. See, e.g., final
rejection, page 3 and answer, page 4.
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Allen taken with De Boodt further in view of
Weiergraber . 1
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
the examiner and appellant in support of their respective
positions. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellant's viewpoint that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed method.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 for essentially those reasons advanced by
appellant. However, we will sustain the examiner's § 103
rejection as it pertains to product claims 3 and 6 for
essentially those fact findings and conclusions set forth in
the answer and as further discussed below. Our reasons
1The admissions, as noted above, are also relied upon by
the examiner in the rejection at issue herein.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007