Appeal No. 2002-2066
Application No. 09/288,504
Jacob W. Ulvila et al. (Ulvila), “Decision Analysis Comes of
Age,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-10 (Sep/Oct 1982).
Claims 1-26, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ulvila in view of Dormond.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and 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
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 28, 2001 (Paper No. 11). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated March 11, 2002 (Paper No. 12), a Reply
Brief was filed May 9, 2002 (Paper No. 13), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated May 16, 2002 (Paper
No. 14).
-3–3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007