Appeal No. 2001-0716
Application No. 08/813,132
Claims 1-3, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
House in view of Estrov.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejection 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 Briefs 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 invention as set forth in claims 1-3.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed May 3, 2000 (Paper No. 20). In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated June 26, 2000 (Paper No. 21), a Reply Brief was
filed September 1, 2000 (Paper No. 22), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 13, 2000 (Paper
No. 23).
-3–3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007