Appeal No. 97-0374
Application 08/310,493
No. 9, mailed August 5, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the above-noted rejection and to appellant’s brief
(Paper No. 8, filed May 8, 1996) for appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant’s
specification and claims, the applied prior art reference, and
the respective positions advanced by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will sustain
the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning follows.
Appellant’s arguments herein center on the fact that the
examiner has taken the position that it would have been an
obvious matter of design choice to alter the shape of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007