Appeal No. 95-4899
Application 08/131,029
Harris et al. (Harris) 4,048,625 Sept. 13,
1977
Ryan et al. (Ryan) 4,551,799 Nov. 5,
1985
Moreno et al. (Moreno) 4,780,808 Oct. 25,
1988
Claims 14, 23 through 25 and 27 through 30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno in
view of Harris.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Moreno in view of Harris and Ryan.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 14 and
23 through 30.
At the outset, we note that appellant’s extensive
arguments concerning the type of buffer used in the disclosed
and claimed invention are not convincing of the nonobviousness
of the claimed invention because the type of buffer is neither
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007