Appeal No. 2004-0507
Application No. 09/476,862
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
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, Appellant’s 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 have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 7 and 8. We
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 3-6 and 9-
12. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed July 28, 2003 (Paper No. 21). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated August 22, 2003 (Paper No. 22), a Reply Brief
was filed October 24, 2003 (Paper No. 23), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated November 6, 2003
(Paper No. 24).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007