Appeal No. 1997-2683
Application No. 08/590,016
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shutt. In a separate
rejection, claims 1 and 2 stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Shutt.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the
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, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief 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 Shutt does not fully meet the invention as set forth
in claims 1 and 2. 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
- -3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007