Appeal No. 1998-2045 Application 08/402,374 considered with Togashi and Asars, and considered further with Holmberg. Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants 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 appellants’ 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 examiner has failed to establish a case of obviousness-type double patenting of the appealed claims. We are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007