Appeal No. 2004-1088 Page 3
Application No. 09/805,202
Claims 1 to 4, 10, 12, 56 to 59 and 61 to 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore in view of McWilliams.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gilmore in view of McWilliams and Weir.
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. 17, mailed July 2, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 16, filed May 27, 2003) and reply brief (Paper
No. 18, filed September 3, 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 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007