Appeal No. 2001-1556
Application 09/333,322
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
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, the 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 1-13. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have nominally indicated that dependent claims
2-12 stand or fall with claim 1, but that independent claims 1
and 13 are independent (separate?) [brief, page 10]. However,
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to
independent claims 1 and 13. Since appellants have failed to
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007