Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
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 rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
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 Nimura ’696 and Nimura ’751 do not fully meet
the invention as set forth in claims 1, 9, 17 and 19. We are
also of the view that Davis does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18, but Davis does
not anticipate the invention of claims 13-15, 19 and 20.
Finally, we are of the view that the evidence relied upon
would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim 16.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007