Appeal No. 2000-0948 Page 3
Application No. 08/511,341
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
6, mailed February 26, 1997) and the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed August 14, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 14,
filed March 25, 1998) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.1
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
1The rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, made in the final rejection was
withdrawn by the examiner (answer, p. 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007