Appeal No. 2004-1753 Page 6 Application No. 09/524,086 evidence is properly weighed along with the teachings of the applied prior art, we conclude that, on balance, the evidence of nonobviousness presented by appellants outweighs the evidence of obviousness presented by the examiner in the rejections before us in this appeal. We thus reach the conclusion that it would not have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rice, Gutierrez or Severin in the manner set forth by the examiner in the rejections under appeal. It follows that the examiner’s rejections will not be sustained. For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Christensen is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10, 11, 13 to 32 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez in view of Christensen is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 17 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over either Gutierrez or Rice and Christensen and further in view of Borgman is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 20, 21, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rice and Christensen and further inPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007