Appeal No. 2001-1795
Application 08/825,196
7. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Burbo in view of the
admitted prior art, Vansaghi and Frantz, and further in view of
Thomanek and Buechler.
The rejections of the claims under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 and on double patenting have been withdrawn by
the examiner [answer, page 3].
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
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, the 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
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007