Appeal No. 95-0543
Application 08/008,734
17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Potter.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer 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 brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Potter fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 1 and 3. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claim 8. We are also of the view that the teachings
of Potter and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of
the invention as set forth in claims 9 and 10. We reach the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007