Appeal No. 96-1705
Application No. 08/296,269
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 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 Lim does not fully meet or suggest the
obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 8 and 9. We
are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the
for the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Copies of
these translations are attached to this decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007