Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Harper et al. (Harper) 5,585,858 Dec. 17, 1996
Hellhake 5,877,755 Mar. 02, 1999
(filed Aug. 22, 1996)
Claims 1-19 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hellhake in view of Harper.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant 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, 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,
Appellant’s 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
1 The Appeal Brief was filed May 12, 2000 (Paper No. 11). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated June 1, 2000 (Paper No. 12), a Reply Brief was
filed August 3, 2000 (Paper No. 13), which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 14, 2000 (Paper No.
14).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007