Appeal No. 1997-3814 Page 5
Application No. 08/601,461
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of Mueller.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed April 15, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10,
filed January 7, 1997) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007