Appeal No. 2001-0836
Application No. 08/991,448
Claims 9, 11-14, and 23 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner
offers Yew in view of Lim with respect to claims 9, 14, and 23,
and adds Esquivel to the basic combination with respect to claims
11-13.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 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 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 evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
2 The Appeal Brief was filed May 19, 2000 (Paper No. 15). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated August 1, 2000 (Paper No. 16), a Reply Brief
was filed August 22, 2000 (Paper No. 17), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner in the communication dated September 6, 2000 (Paper No. 18).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007