Appeal No. 2002-1267 Page 3
Application No. 09/333,928
Claims 7 and 10 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spada in view of Focke as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Adams.
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. 16, mailed February 26, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15, filed January 16, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed April 17, 2002) 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 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007