Appeal No. 1998-1329
Application 08/642,595
Thompson.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 1
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection 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
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
1 The Appeal Brief was filed September 26, 1997. In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated November 12, 1997,
Appellants filed a Reply Brief on February 6, 1998 to which
the Examiner responded with a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
dated March 19, 1998.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007