Appeal No. 2000-1900
Application No. 08/669,937
Boyd. In a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims
7, 9, 11, 17, 19, and 21 also stand finally rejected as being
unpatentable over McConnell in view of Boyd.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 17) and
Answer (Paper No. 18) for their respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Appellant’s 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 evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
1, 3, 4, 7, 9-12, and 14-21. Accordingly, we affirm.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007