Appeal No. 2001-0516
Application No. 08/834,073
Claims 1-17 and 19 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellant’s admitted prior
art in view of Kuboyama.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 23) and
Answer (Paper No. 24) 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 Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection 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
1-17 and 19. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007