Appeal No. 1997-1695
Application No. 08/496,121
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. 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 rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that Ichimura does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in
claims 1 and 10. 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 recited in claims 2 through 6,
8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 through 22, and 25 through 27.
7, 1997 and July 31, 1997 which indicated entry of the Reply Brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007