Appeal No. 2006-1458
Application No. 10/040,395
Claims 32-40, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chiang in view of Litwin.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer (revised)
for their 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
claims 32-40. Accordingly, we reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007