Appeal No. 1999-0475
Application No. 08/402,031
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the1
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 Briefs 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 Montagna reference does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 17.
We are also of the view 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
The Appeal Brief was filed December 18, 1997 (Paper No. 15). In1
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated March 31, 1998 (Paper No. 16), a Reply
Brief was filed May 26, 1998 (Paper No. 17), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated August 18,
1998 (Paper No. 18).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007