Application No. 2006-3067
Appeal No. 09/952,953
The admitted prior art described in appellants’ specification.
Claims 21-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers the admitted prior art in view of Nomura and Inoue with
respect to claims 21-23,
25-28, 30-33, 35, and 36, and Barrett is added to this combination with respect to claims
24, 29, and 34.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. 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 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 evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would 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 affirm.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007