Appeal No. 2002-1671 Page 3
Application No. 08/993,985
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 27, mailed January 24, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 26, filed November 20, 2001) and
reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed March 25, 2002) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The obviousness rejection based on Kawai and Fontaine
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6, 8 to 16, 19 to 21, 36, 37, 39
to 49 and 51 to 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of
Fontaine.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007