Appeal No. 1998-1917
Application No. 08/766,984
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, Appellants’ 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 obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to claims 5, 7 and 9-15. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
Appellant indicates (Brief, page 3) that, for purposes of
this appeal, claims 1 and 3-6 stand or fall separately from
claims 7 and 9-15, and separate arguments for patentability
have been provided for independent claims 1 and 7 and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007