Appeal No. 2004-0088 Page 3
Application No. 09/821,663
Claims 16 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mumford in view of Bayliss as applied to claim 1, further in view of ColDepietro et
al. (ColDepietro)4 and Official Notice.
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. 11, mailed April 11, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10, filed March 14, 2003) 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, 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 3
and 5 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
4 U.S. Patent No. 6,273,260 issued August 14, 2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007