Appeal No. 1998-3393
Application No. 08/763,326
Godshalk et al. (Godshalk) 5,384,646 Jan. 24,
1995
Claims 1-8 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Godshalk in view of Itoh.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejection and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, 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 invention set forth in claims 1-8. Accordingly,
we reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007