Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
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 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 the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 3-6, 8-18, 22-24 and 35-46. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 19-21.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims
are independently patentable [brief, page 3], but they have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007