Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 4
Application No. 08/366,988
reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12-17,
21, 23, and 25. We are persuaded, however, that she did err
in rejecting claims 6, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We begin by noting that the references represent the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(finding
that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err
in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best
determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich, 579
F.2d 86, 91,
198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO usually must
evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold
words of the literature."). Of course, “‘[e]very patent
application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007