Appeal No. 2004-1836 Page 3
Application No. 09/590,815
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 21, mailed July 17, 2003) and the answer (Paper No. 24, mailed
January 13, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 23, filed September 25, 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 references, 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 case of obviousness with respect to claims 1 to 9,
12 to 16, 18 to 20, 24 and 25. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claims 1 to 9, 12 to 16, 18 to 20, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, after
evaluation of Saad and Burshtain, it is our conclusion that the combined teachings of
Saad and Burshtain is sufficient to establish a case of obviousness with respect to
claims 33 and 34. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 33 and
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for these determinations follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007