Ex parte TEUFEL - Page 4




                 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