Appeal No. 2003-0735
Application 09/238,859
Claim 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, all of the appealed claims, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the admitted prior art in view of Kemeny.2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs3 and the Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejection, 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,
Appellants’ 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 have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
2 Although the Examiner included claim 6 in the statement of the grounds
of rejection, claim 6 was cancelled in the amendment filed July 16, 2001
(Paper No. 13).
3 The Appeal Brief was filed April 2, 2002 (Paper No. 17). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 18, 2002 (Paper No. 18), a Reply Brief
was filed August 23, 2002 (Paper No. 20), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner in the communication dated October 31, 2002 (Paper No. 22).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007