Appeal No. 2001-1417
Application No. 09/042,520
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner
offers Bronstein in view of Ketley, Nishioka, and Williams with
respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-21, 23, and 24, and
adds Goldberg to the basic combination with respect to claim 22.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 17 and Answer
(Paper No. 19) 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, Appellants’ 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 set forth in
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-24. Accordingly, we reverse.
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007