Appeal No. 2001-1679 Page 3
Application No. 08/849,336
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lister or Kümmerlin in view of either Krämer or Layher as applied to claim 6 above, and
further in view of Miller.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 23, mailed December 19, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 22, filed October 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant 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 6 to 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007