Appeal No. 1996-2702
Application No. 08/093,983
9, and adds Ku and Favreau to the basic combination with respect
to claims 4, 6, 10, and 12.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
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, Appellant’s 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 Answer.
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 have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and
1The Appeal Brief was filed May 30, 1995. In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated August 31, 1995, a Reply Brief was
filed November 6, 1995, which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner without further comment as indicated in the
communication of February 13, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007