Appeal No. 2005-0166
Application 09/789,872
and distinctly claim the invention. Finally, claims 1-48 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the
examiner offers Simmons taken alone.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments in
support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the obviousness rejection.
We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the
brief 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 1-48 comply with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that
claims 1-48 particularly point out the invention in a manner
which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. Finally, we are of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007