Appeal No. 2001-2348
Application 08/927,222
with respect to claims 1-6, 8-11, 13 and 15, and Nitta in view of
Becker with respect to claims 7, 12 and 14.
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 rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. 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 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 not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1-15. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims within each rejection will all stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 6]. Consistent with this
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007