Appeal No. 1998-0644
Application 08/637,588
U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers
Pugh in view of Barnes.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief 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 anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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 claim 24 particularly points out the invention
in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also
of the view that the disclosure of Barnes fully meets the
invention as set forth in claims 22 and 23. Finally, we are
of the view that the collective evidence relied upon and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007