Appeal No. 2002-2077
Application No. 09/273,363
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
claims 1-13. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has nominally indicated that the claims do not
stand or fall together [brief, pages 5-6], but he has not
specifically argued the limitations of each of the claims. The
extent of appellant’s arguments, with respect to the dependent
claims, appears on pages 10-11 of the brief wherein it is stated
what is recited in each of the claims and then it is baldly
asserted that the prior art does not teach or suggest the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007