Appeal No. 1999-2797
Application No. 08/609,875
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Posso in
view of Kuga with respect to claims 1-5, and adds Macor to the
basic combination with respect to claims 6, 7, 9, and 10.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 19) and
Answer (Paper No. 20) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejection 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,
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 1-7, 9, and 10. Accordingly, we reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007