Appeal No. 2000-0421
Application 08/912,429
taken alone. Additional rejections which were made in the final
rejection were withdrawn in the examiner’s answer.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
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 disclosures of Pastore and Bond do fully meet the
claimed invention as asserted by the examiner. We are also of
the view that the teachings of Ho 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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007