Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
Piper 4,812,017 Mar. 14, 1989
Kuijk 5,032,831 July 16, 1991
Hamada et al. (Hamada) 5,144,288 Sep. 01, 1992
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Kuijk in view of
Piper with respect to claims 1 and 4, and adds Hamada with
respect to claims 2, 3 and 5.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs 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 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 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007