Appeal No. 2000-0808
Application No. 08/906,815
Claims 1-7 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Kato in view of
Kanda, Zerillo, and Schneider with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-7,
and adds Nakayama to the basic combination with respect to claim 4.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner 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 Briefs 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 The Appeal Brief (revised) was filed August 24, 1999 (Paper No. 18).
In response to the Examiner’s Answer dated October 1, 1999 (Paper No. 19), a
Reply Brief was filed December 6, 1999 (Paper No. 20), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated December
27, 1999 (Paper No. 21).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007