Ex parte OMVIK et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1999-0533                                                        
          Application 08/614,775                                                      


          § 103.  As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers the                  
          admitted prior art in view of McLaughlin.                                   




          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the brief 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 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 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 claims 1, 2 and 5-10.  Accordingly, we reverse.                
                                         -3-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007