Appeal No. 1997-2245 Page 4
Application No. 08/402,872
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, 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, 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 evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 1-14.
Accordingly, we reverse, essentially for the reasons set forth
by appellants.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, and 12
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mishin, Weitschies, or Macri in view of Leibing. Turning
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007