Appeal No. 1996-3273
Application 08/127,932
unpatentable over the admitted prior art set forth in
appellants’ specification.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief 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 anticipation and 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 brief
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 invention of claims 1-6 is not fully met by the
disclosure of Blasbalg. We are also of the view that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007