Appeal No. 1997-4389 Page 7
Application No. 08/546,925
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed April 29, 1997) and the supplemental answer (Paper No.
16, mailed September 22, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 13, filed April 1, 1997), reply brief (Paper No.
15, filed June 30, 1997) and supplemental reply brief (Paper
No. 17, filed October 2, 1997) 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, 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 rejections of claims 1 to 14 under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007