Appeal No. 2001-0910
Application No. 08/903,756
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 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 Briefs 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 DeSimone reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22, and 23. With respect
to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
1The Appeal Brief was filed July 7, 2000 (Paper No. 9). In response to the
Examiner’s Answer dated September 28, 2000 (Paper No. 10), a Reply Brief was
filed November 30, 2000 (Paper No. 11), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated December 14, 2000 (Paper
No. 12).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007