Appeal No. 2004-0373
Application No. 08/939,064
the Examiner offers Elliott in view of Santos-Gomez with respect
to claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10, and adds Liles to the basic
combination with respect to claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. 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 not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
1 The Appeal Brief was filed September 13, 2002 (Paper No. 33). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 18, 2002 (Paper No. 34), a
Reply Brief was filed February 24, 2003 (Paper No. 35), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner in the communication dated April 1, 2003 (Paper
No. 37).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007