Appeal No. 1998-0701
Application 08/263,744
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Fukami,
Minoda, Enoki and Kim.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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 and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the obviousness rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed
and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s 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 the originally filed specification supports
the invention now being claimed as required by 35 U.S.C. §
112. We are also of the view that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007