Appeal No. 2001-0212 Page 3
Application No. 08/958,497
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. 17,
mailed May 10, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 16,
filed February 28, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed
June 19, 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 (i.e., Murray and
Bender), 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
2(...continued)
1970)(evidence that is relied upon must be positively set
forth in the statement of the rejection).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007