Appeal No. 95-4959
Application 08/145,722
Capasso in view of Ando . Finally, claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being2
unpatentable over the teachings of Capasso in view of Potter.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants 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 anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for
the prior art 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 answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that claims 6-10 recite the invention in a
manner that complies with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the
invention as recited in claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 is fully met by the disclosure of Capasso. Finally, it is our
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 2, 4
and 11. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
2Our understanding of Ando is based on a translation of the document provided by the
Translations Branch of the Scientific and Technical Information Center of the Patent and Trademark
Office. A copy of this translation is being provided with this decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007