Appeal No. 2000-2217 Page 4
Application No. 09/067,287
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. 15,
mailed August 7, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 14,
filed July 10, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
September 11, 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
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 14, 16, 18 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007