Appeal No. 1999-2826
Application No. 08/696,247
Claims 1-12 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Havel in view of
Reed with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-11, and adds Paul to the
basic combination with respect to claims 6 and 12.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 13) and
Answer (Paper No. 14) for their 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, 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 obviousness of the invention as recited in claims
1-12. Accordingly, we reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007