Appeal No. 2000-2032 Page 3
Application No. 09/017,187
Claims 11 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kalisiak in view of Richards and
Reponty, and further view of Nakazato.
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. 15,
mailed March 10, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14,
filed February 18, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
May 15, 2000) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007