Appeal No. 1995-3903 Page 5
Application No. 08/062,737
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejection and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the arguments of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the record
before us, it is our view that the evidence and level of
skill in the art would have suggested the invention of claims
37 and 43-44. We cannot say, however, that they would have
suggested the invention of claims 38-42 and 45-47.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims by finding that the references represent the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in
concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was
best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007