Appeal No. 1998-2692
Application 08/512,239
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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 have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 3, 8, 19 and 21. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to claims 9-11, 15-18 and 20. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 3, 8, 10, 11
and 16-21 based on the teachings of Lambropoulos and Boyles.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal these
claims will stand or fall together in the following three
groups: Group I has claims 3, 8, 19 and 21, Group II has
claims 11 and 20, and Group III has claims 10 and 16-18
[brief, page 4]. Consistent with this indication appellant
has made no separate arguments with respect to any of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007