Appeal No. 97-2466 Page 5
Application No. 08/461,943
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejection and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the arguments of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the record
before us, it is our view that the evidence and level of skill
in the art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18.
We cannot say, however, that the evidence and level of skill
in the art would have suggested the invention of claims 2, 4-
7, and 13-16. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims by finding that the references represent the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in
concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was
best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich,
579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO
usually must evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007