Appeal No. 1997-4044 Page 4
Application No. 08/504,233
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
In the brief (p. 3), the appellant stated that the claims
under appeal
can be grouped into two groups:
Group 1: Claims 1, 3-10 which are directed to an
apparatus and
Group 2: Claims 11 and 13 -18 which are directed to a
process.
In accordance with the appellant's grouping of claims and
arguments provided, we need to review only the rejections of
independent claims 1 and 11 to decide the appeal on the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth above.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007