Appeal No. 1999-2713 Page 5
Application No. 08/801,805
(Paper No. 18, filed May 4, 1999) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
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 2-5 and
7. Accordingly, we reverse, essentially for the reasons set
forth by appellants.
We begin with the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over APA considered with Endo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007