Appeal No. 99-0717 Page 5
Application No. 08/597,095
reader to the appeal and reply briefs and the examiner’s
answer for the respective details thereof.
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 appellants’
and examiner’s arguments. 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 claim 1 but not that of claims 2-10.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007