Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 3

          Appeal No. 1998-1288                                                        
          Application No. 08/502,817                                                  

               Claims 1-6, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
          103.  As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Zansky in              
          view of Cox with respect to claims 1, 2, 12 and 13, and the                 
          examiner adds Cates and Warren to this combination with                     
          respect to claims 3-6.                                                      
               Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                   
          examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for                 
          the respective details thereof.                                             
          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 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 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 invention as set forth in claims 1-6, 12               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007