Appeal No. 2002-2182
Application No. 09/223,565
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 21) and Answer
(Paper No. 22) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, 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 disclosure of Lemay fully meets the invention as recited
in claims 1, 3, 10, 11, and 13. In addition, we are of the opinion
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the obviousness of the invention set forth in claim 2.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants nominally indicate (Brief, page 4) that the claims
on appeal stand or fall together as a group. Consistent with this
indication, with respect to claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 13 subject to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007