Ex parte HALLSTEDT et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-2921                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/511,451                                                  


               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. 32,                   
          mailed January 21, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning              
          in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 31,                
          filed August 15, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 33, filed                 
          March 26, 1998) 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 references, 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 19 to 26 under               
          35 U.S.C. § 103.  Our reasoning for this determination                      
          follows.                                                                    









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007