Appeal No. 1998-0929
Application 08/469,770
103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Dainippon in
view of Ward and the admitted prior art, and further in view
of Sach.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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 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 answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 30-74. Accordingly, we affirm.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007