Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 4
Application No. 08/321,255
Fechner further in view of Buettner. Claim 11 stands rejected
under § 103 as obvious over Owe in view of Murata further in
view of Fechner further in view of Harms. Rather than repeat
the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer
the reader to the appeal brief and the examiner’s answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections 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 to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention of claims 1 and 4-6. We cannot say,
however, that the evidence and level of skill in the art would
have suggested the invention of claims 2-3 and 7-21.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims by finding that the references represent the level of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007