Appeal No. 2005-1945 Page 3
Application No. 09/777,510
Claims 1 to 19, 25, 29 to 34 and 48 to 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Feingold in view of Wanders.
Claims 26 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Feingold in view of Wanders and Choyce.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection, the answer (mailed March 19, 2004) and the supplemental answer (mailed
September 17, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (filed January 9, 2004), reply brief (filed May 24, 2004) and
supplemental reply brief (filed November 22, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007