Appeal No. 1999-0035
Application No. 08/661,261
Claims 1, 5, and 6 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Graham. Claims 2-4 and 7-10
stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Graham in view of Liston.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (paper no. 11) and
Answer (paper no. 12) 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, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief 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 Graham does not fully meet the invention as set forth
in claims 1, 5, and 6. We are also of the view that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007