Appeal No. 2000-0534 Page 4
Application No. 08/929,543
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Epply in view of
Tomczak or Steen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
16, mailed August 21, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 24,
mailed September 13, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper
No. 23, filed June 11, 1999) 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 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007