Appeal No. 2000-2267
Application No. 08/764,576
Accordingly, we will not review the issue raised by Appellants on
pages 5 and 6 of the Brief.
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejections, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner as support for the obviousness rejection. 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 Appellants’ specification in this application describes the
claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the conclusion
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 1-5 and 7-10. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-10 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, noting that the Examiner
relies on both the written description and enabling clauses of
the statute. Initially, we would point out that the function of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007