Appeal No. 96-3092
Application 08/307,498
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 prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the claimed invention is operative and has
utility within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. We are also of
the view that the specification describes the claimed
invention in a manner which complies with the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Finally, we are of the view that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
14-30. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007