Appeal No. 2006-0513
Application No. 09/741,684
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
argument 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 disclosure of Albrecht, as well as that of Ainslie,
fully meets the invention as recited in claims 7-11. In
addition, we are of the opinion that the evidence relied upon and
the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to
1 The Appeal Brief was filed June 21, 2004. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer dated September 7, 2004, a Reply Brief was filed November
12, 2004 which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in
the communication dated November 15, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007