Appeal No. 2000-2057
Application 08/838,791
The admitted prior art described in appellant’s specification.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Ito in view of Nosaki and the
admitted prior art. Claims 1-10 also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Gahang
and Augusti.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief 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 obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief 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 obviousness of the invention as set forth in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007