Appeal No. 2001-0730 Page 3
Application No. 09/221,543
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed July 7, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed
June 5, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed September
11, 2000) 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, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon
evaluation of that evidence, 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 the2
2Thus, there is no need for us to consider the
appellant's declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 dated February
28, 2000 (Paper No. 6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007