Appeal No. 1999-2380
Application No. 08/575,743 Page 4
appellants could have made but chose not to make in the brief
have not been considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of 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 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 invention as set forth in claims 1-20.
Accordingly, we reverse, essentially for the reasons set forth by
appellants.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and
14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Jacobson in view of Futral.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007