Appeal No. 96-1233
Application 08/259,368
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Blasciak does fully meet the
invention of claims 17, 18 and 20-22, but does not fully meet
the invention as recited in claims 19 and 23. We are also of
the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill
in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 25-30. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 17-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Blasciak. Anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007