Ex parte GOLDENBERG - Page 3

          Appeal No. 95-0206                                                          
          Application 07/866,789                                                      

          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                        
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 

          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, the 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 collective evidence relied upon and the level of               
          skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of              
          ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set           
          forth in claims 1-7.  Accordingly, we reverse.                              
          Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal                    
          the claims will stand or fall together in the following two                 
          groups: Group I has claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7, and Group II has               
          claims 2 and 5.  Consistent with this indication appellant has              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007