Appeal No. 2004-0116 Page 3
Application No. 09/966,307
Claims 161 to 164 and 194 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over DePoint in view of Simmons.
Claims 166 to 168 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over DePoint in view of OPTIPACK™.
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. 12, mailed January 10, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed November 25, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed March 17, 2003) 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 (i.e., DePoint, Simmons
and OPTIPACK™), 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007