Appeal No. 2001-1186
Application No. 08/819,609
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs,1 the final Office
action, and the Answer for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner 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, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs 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 not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as recited in claims 1-15, 17, and 18.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed November 13, 2000 (Paper No. 20) in
response to the final Office action mailed April 7, 2000 (Paper No. 11). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 24, 2000 (Paper No. 21), a
Reply Brief was filed December 6, 2000 (Paper No. 22), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner in the communication dated December 13, 2000
(Paper No. 23).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007