Appeal No. 1999-2209 Page 4
Application No. 09/069,355
have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been
considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
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 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 invention as set forth in claims 1-13.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin with the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris in view of
Mackenzie. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007