Appeal No. 1998-0915
Application No. 08/441,194
respect to claim 1 and Ipposhi in view of Seidel with respect
to claim 2.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for 1
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 rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
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 evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
1Appellant has filed a brief, a reply brief, a
supplemental reply brief and a second supplemental reply brief
[Paper Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 19]. The first three papers were
entered and considered by the examiner, but the fourth paper
was denied entry by the examiner [Paper No. 20].
Consequently, we have not considered the second supplemental
reply brief in reaching our decision in this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007