Appeal No. 1997-3121
Application 07/987,048
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments in
support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the obviousness 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 disclosure in this application describes the claimed
invention in a manner which complies with the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the collective
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 claims 2, 5, 9-11
and 13. Accordingly, we reverse.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007