Appeal No. 1999-2283
Application No. 08/690,525
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the4
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner 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 Briefs 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 obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 2-5 and 8-11. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
The Appeal Brief was filed October 14, 1997 (Paper No. 29). In4
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated December 24, 1997 (Paper No. 30), a
Reply Brief was filed February 27, 1998 (Paper No. 31) which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner without further comment as indicated in the
communication dated December 10, 1998 (Paper No. 35).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007