Appeal No. 2001-1419
Application No. 09/199,960
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs,1 the final Office
action, and the 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 have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
9-17. Accordingly, we affirm.
We note that Appellants indicate at page 3 of the Brief
that, for the purposes of this appeal, the appealed rejected
1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 30, 2000 (Paper No. 9) in response
to the final Office action mailed May 24, 2000 (Paper No. 5). In response to
the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 27, 2000 (Paper No. 10), a Reply Brief
was filed January 31, 2001 (Paper No. 11), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner in the communication dated February 9, 2001 (Paper No. 12).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007