Appeal No. 96-2715
Application 08/359,673
rejection also contained a rejection of all the claims on the
ground of obviousness-type double patenting. This rejection
was not repeated in the answer because appellants indicated a
willingness to file a terminal disclaimer rather than contest
this rejection. 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 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 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007