Appeal No. 2001-1421
Application No. 09/128,226
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 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 evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as recited in claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, and 15.
We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, and 13. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of the appealed claims are organized
according to a suggested grouping of claims indicated at page 3
of the Brief. We will consider the appealed claims separately
only to the extent separate arguments for patentability are
presented. Any dependent claim not separately argued will stand
-4–4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007