Appeal No. 2006-1995
Application No. 10/662,263
Claims 1-10 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Parienti and Renner.
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 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 1-10.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed January 17, 2006. In response to the Examiner’s Answer
mailed March 8, 2006, a Reply Brief was filed March 29, 2006, which was
acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated
April 11, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007