Appeal No. 95-1844 Application 07/822,063 Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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 appellant’s 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 Lehrmann does fully meet the invention as recited in claim 5. We are also of the view that the collective evidence relied upon 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 1-3, 6, 7, 10-24, 26 and 27. We reach the opposite 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007