Appeal No. 2006-1726
Application No. 09/725,849
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 not suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claim 18. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11-14 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have also not sustained the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 6, 7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Therefore, we reverse.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007