Appeal No. 2000-2266
Application No. 09/069,700
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 11) and
Answer (Paper No. 12) for the respective details.
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, Appellants’
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 Lynch reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, and 22-25. With respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are also of the view 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 recited in claims 4-7, 11-14, 18-21, and 26-29.
Accordingly, we reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007