Appeal No. 1997-3482
Application No. 08/431,779
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 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 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 the disclosure of Weavers fully meets the invention
as recited in claims 1-5 and 8. We reach the opposite
conclusion, however, with respect to claims 7 and 9. 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
set forth in claims 6, 10, and 11. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weavers.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007