Appeal No. 2003-0275 Page 3
Application No. 09/550,032
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 13, mailed April 9, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12, filed February 11, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14, filed June 17, 2002) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.2
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, 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 rejections of
claims 1 to 25, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
2 Since the rejection of claims 20 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, set forth in the
final rejection was not set forth in the examiner's answer we assume that this ground of rejection has been
withdrawn by the examiner. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007