Appeal No. 1999-0409
Application 08/425,741
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
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, the 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 not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
Before we discuss the substantive issues in this case,
we note that appellants have asked us to rule on the propriety
of the action of March 31, 1997 being made final by the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007