Appeal No. 1997-1194
Application No. 08/084,668
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 1, 4 through 10, 12 through 14, 19, and 20. We
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 2 and 15
through
17. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant has indicated (Brief, page 4) that, for
purposes of this appeal, claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, 13, 15,
and 20 stand or fall separately and, accordingly, has provided
separate arguments for each of these claims. We will consider
the claims separately only to the extent that separate
arguments are of record in this appeal. Dependent claims 7,
9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 have not been argued separately
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007