Appeal No. 2001-2089
Application 08/993,368
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1, the final Office
action (Paper No. 18), and the Answer 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, Appellant’s 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 not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 12-21.
Accordingly, we reverse.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 27, 2000 (Paper No. 23). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer Mailed January 16, 2001 (Paper No. 24), a
Reply Brief was filed March 5, 2001 (Paper No. 27), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner in the communication dated March 19, 2001 (Paper No.
28).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007