Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the 2
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 rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s 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 Audebert does not anticipate the invention nor would
Audebert have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1-3 and 5-15.
Accordingly, we reverse.
2A reply brief was filed by appellant on December 23, 1996
but was denied entry by the examiner [Paper #14]. Accordingly,
we have not considered the reply brief in the preparation of this
decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007