Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Lumelsky et al. (Lumelsky) 5,162,779 Nov. 10, 1992
Frasier et al. (Frasier) 5,268,677 Dec. 07, 1993
Takeda 6,166,718 Dec. 26, 2000
(filed Jun. 10, 1997)
Claims 4, 14, and 22, all of the appealed claims, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takeda in view of Frasier and Lumelsky.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and the 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
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 30, 2002 (Paper No. 10). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 26, 2003 (Paper No. 11), a
Reply Brief was filed May 23, 2003 (Paper No. 12), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner in the communication dated July 29, 2003 (Paper No.
13).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007