Appeal No. 2002-1578
Application No. 08/814,928
prior art. In separate rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims
31-37 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Terada alone and as
being unpatentable over Leak in view of Terada.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of
the rejections, 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,
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 the
2 The Appeal Brief was filed October 17, 2001 (Paper no. 34). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated February 8, 2002 (Paper No. 35), a
Reply Brief was filed March 5, 2002 (Paper No. 36), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated March 29, 2002
(Paper No. 37).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007