Appeal No. 2001-0079
Application No. 09/092,702
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants 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,
Appellants’ 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 8-10, 20-22, 25, and 26. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to claims 7 and 19. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed February 28, 2000 (Paper No. 10). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated May 2, 2000 (Paper No. 11), a Reply
Brief was filed May 30, 2000 (Paper No. 12), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated July 3, 2000
(Paper No. 13).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007