Appeal No. 2003-1657 Page 3
Application No. 09/554,319
Claims 2 to 5, 7 to 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 to 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art in
view of Rescigno.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the non-final
rejection and the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed January 28, 2003) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12, filed
December 13, 2002) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
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 rejection of
2 Claims 2 to 4 were included in this ground of rejection in the answer (p. 3) but were not included
in this ground of rejection in the non-final rejection (p. 4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007