Appeal No. 98-3306
Application 08/866,014
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 23, mailed
May 20, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 21, filed
February 2, 1998) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
Even if, as has been urged by the examiner, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007