Appeal No. 96-1534
Application 07/888,991
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers 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 anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Li fails to fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 28-30. We are also of the view that the
teachings of Kuechler do not fully meet the invention as recited
in claims 25-30 nor would these teachings have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 25-30. Accordingly, we reverse.
Before we consider the specific rejections of the claims,
we note that claim interpretation is a critical issue in this
case. The examiner noted that the phrase “one of the steps”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007