Appeal No. 2000-2262
Application No. 08/990,996
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, 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
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 11, 13, 16, 19,
21, and 22. Accordingly, we reverse.
1 The original Appeal Brief was filed September 29, 1999 (Paper No. 11).
A Supplemental Appeal Brief, which indicated that the arguments in the
originally filed brief were being repeated, was filed February 7, 2000 (Paper
No. 14) in response to a further Office action dated October 26, 1999 (Paper
No. 12). In response to the Examiner’s Answer dated March 1, 2000 (Paper No.
15), a Reply Brief was filed May 1, 2000 (Paper No. 16) which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner in the communication dated May 12, 2000 (Paper No.
17).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007