Appeal No. 2000-1665
Application 08/752,529
found appellant’s claimed invention to be a solution to the
labeling problem and, thus, to satisfy the long-felt need.
See paragraphs 13-26 of the Valiulis declaration; paragraphs
6-8 of the Harrell declaration; paragraphs 5-10 of the Hopson
declaration; paragraphs 5-7 of the Stipanovich declaration;
and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Shope declaration. In this
regard, we agree with appellant’s arguments put forth on pages
25-28 and 39-42 of the brief and on pages 5-6 of the reply
brief. More particularly, we agree with appellant (brief,
pages 40-42) that the examiner’s reasons, set forth above, for
not giving the declaration evidence adequate weight are
without foundation (factually or legally) and are therefore
unpersuasive.
Thus, we have now carefully considered all of the
evidence of nonobviousness supplied by appellant, and weighed
that evidence along with the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner. As a result of our considerations, we
reach the conclusion that appellant's invention as set forth
in claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 12 through 17, 19 through 32 and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007