Appeal No. 2000-1914 Application No. 08/718,643 information. However, appellants request reconsideration of the refusal to consider the declaration and also point out that an amendment accompanies the appeal brief providing an updated sales report and a declaration (Raymond Iannetta). The examiner should address the noted request and amendment, each of which were not mentioned in the answer. As a final point, we note that should the examiner reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, with evidence of nonobviousness (secondary considerations) entered into the application, the examiner must assess the evidence of obviousness with the evidence of nonobviousness; See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In summary, this panel of the board has: reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 7, 11 through 16, 19, 21, 22, 27, 31, 32, 34 through 36, 40, 48, 49, and 55 through 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deyoreo; 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007