Appeal No. 2002-0159 Page 3
Application No. 08/951,317
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Oosuka in view of Endo.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs 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
obviousness rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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 specification and the claims are in compliance with
35 U.S.C. § 112, and 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 the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of all the
claims on appeal under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Although the rejection is nominally written as a lack of written
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007