Ex parte NELSON et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-2294                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/546,298                                                  


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                
          rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11,                   
          mailed November 26, 1997) for the examiner's complete                       
          reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper              
          No. 10, filed September 5, 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 rejection of claims 1-6, 10-15 and               
          19-22 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