Appeal No. 1999-0418 Page 4
Application No. 08/517,036
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Arnett in view of Argos and Paz.
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 11 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
obvious over Arnett in view of Argos and Paz further in view
of Rohrer. Claim 3 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious
over Arnett in view of Argos and Paz further in view of
Yamazaki. Claim 5 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious
over Arnett in view of Argos and Paz further in view of
Agostinelli. Rather than repeat the arguments of the
appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the
briefs and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the record, we
are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
11. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting the following principles from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007