Appeal No. 1998-2903
Application No. 08/607,305
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed November 3, 1997 ) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 12, 1997) and
reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed January 5, 1998) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that “[p]ages 8-13 of the Examiner’s Answer are brilliant and
display very impressive legal scholarship, but they are hindsight and leave unanswered the
question: If it was so simple and obvious, then why wasn’t it previously done?”
(See reply brief, at page 4.) We agree with appellants that those pages of the answer are
presented well by the examiner, but are lacking in support in either Mochida or the
examiner's explanation of the level of skill in the art. From our review of Mochida and those
portions cited by the examiner, we find that Mochida does not clearly support the
propositions advanced by the examiner. We find Mochida merely teaches the basic
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007