Appeal No. 2002-1643 Page 3 Application No. 09/140,700 Claims 24 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Jacobson. 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. 29, mailed January 22, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 28, filed December 14, 2001) 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 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 24 and 29 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 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007