Appeal No. 2005-0326 Page 3
Application No. 10/081,376
Claims 4, 5, 9 to 12 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schade in view of Dobell and Lande.3
Claims 6 to 8, 11, 12 and 20 to 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schade in view of Dobell, Lande and Kadota.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed August 25, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed June 3, 2004) and reply brief (filed October 27, 2004)
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
3 We note that claim 9 which is included in this ground of rejection depends from claim 8 which is
included in the next ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007