Appeal No. 2003-0867 Page 5
Application No. 09/688,104
rejection (Paper No. 14, mailed June 5, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
December 13, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 18, filed November 13, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 20,
filed January 21, 2003) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
In the brief (p. 5), the appellants stated that (1) Claims 1, 2 and 4 to 13 stand or
fall together; (2) Claims 14 to 19 stand or fall together; and (3) Claim 20 stands alone.
In accordance with the appellants grouping of claims and arguments provided,
we need to review only the rejections of claims 1, 14 and 20 (the independent claims on
appeal) to decide the appeal on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth above.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007