Appeal No. 2002-1311
Application No. 09/042,291
144 USPQ 347, 349; 339 US 965 (CCPA 1965).” Claims 4-6, 8, 14-18, 21-24 and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) “as being unpatentable over G-L in view of Larson and further
in view of St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, 11; 549 F.2d 833(7th Cir. 1977)(‘St.
Regis Paper Co’).”
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
the appellant’s 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 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.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal the claims will all stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 5]. Consistent with this indication appellant has made no
separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on appeal. Since there are two different
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007