Appeal No. 2004-0031
Application 09/485,656
3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Hafner in view of
Hollander and Mildner and further in view of Buckel and Shotey.
4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Hafner in view of
Hollander and Mildner and further in view of Gerland.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants 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 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 the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007