Appeal No. 1998-1811
Application No. 08/395,193
Matsumi to the basic combination with respect to claim 6, and
adding Beaulier to the basic combination with respect to
claims 10-13.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the 1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejection 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, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the
Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejection 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
1 The Reply Brief filed August 1, 1997 was considered by
the Examiner as not being limited to new points of arguments
or to new grounds of rejection and was not entered.
Accordingly, the arguments in such Reply Brief have not been
considered in this appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007