Appeal No. 2002-1672
Application No. 09/412,124
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 prior art 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 rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that claims 1-8 and 12-22 particularly point out the invention in
a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
It is also our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Circello and Argade references do not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 17, 19, 20, and
22. With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, we
are further of the opinion 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 invention as recited in
claims 1-7, 12-14, 17-20, and 22. Accordingly, we reverse.
We also use our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) to enter a
new ground of rejection of independent claim 1. The basis for
these conclusions will be set forth in detail below.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007