Appeal No. 1998-2570
Application No. 08/381,156
as being anticipated by Sampsell. Claims 18 and 19 stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sampsell in view of Schell.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 17) and
Answer (Paper No. 18) for the respective details.
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, Appellant’s 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 evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007