Appeal No. 1999-2075
Application No. 08/482,944
offers Pryor alone with respect to claim 1, and Fellous in view of
Saunders with respect to claims 2-4.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 16) and Answer
(Paper No. 18) for their respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejections. 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 the Fellous reference fully meets the invention as set forth
in claim 1. We are also of the view that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim
1 based on the Pryor reference, nor with respect to claims 2-4
based on the proposed combination of Fellous and Saunders.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007