Appeal No. 1996-1243
Application No. 08/226,224
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 rejection. 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 answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the claims on appeal recite the invention in a manner
which complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also 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 the appealed claims. Accordingly,
we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of all appealed claims
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. With respect
to independent claim 27 [appendix version], the examiner
asserts the lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “the first
said path” in line 14 of the claim and the phrase “said other
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007