Appeal No. 2005-0133
Application 10/037,390
respective details thereof.
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, the 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 the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
three groups: Group I has claims 106-114, 118 and 120-126; Group
II has claims 115-117, 127, 128, 133-143, 145, 147 and 149; and
Group III has claims 119, 129, 144, 146 and 148 [brief, page 2].
Consistent with this indication appellants have made no separate
arguments with respect to any of the claims within each group.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007