Appeal No. 2001-0078
Application No. 08/892,131
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their
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
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1-3, 6, 13 and 15. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 4, 5, and 16. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s arguments in response to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of the appealed claims are organized
1 The Appeal Brief was filed March 13, 2000 (Paper No. 12). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated May 17, 2000 (Paper No. 13), a Reply Brief was
filed June 22, 2000 (Paper No. 14), which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication dated July 3, 2000 (Paper No. 15).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007