Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
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 disclosure in this application describes
the claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the 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 1-4 and
14-26. Accordingly, we reverse.
At the outset, we note that appellant has made several
arguments directed to the prosecution of this application and
the parent application. Specifically, appellant argues that
added material to the disclosure which is now being viewed as
new matter was specifically approved by a different examiner
during the course of earlier prosecution. Appellant also
argues that the prior art rejection was made by a different
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007