Appeal 2006-2033
Application 10/116,774
Claims 1-23, all of the appealed claims, stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Moore
in view of Armga with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-23, and adds Burkett to
the basic combination with respect to claim 13.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant 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 obviousness relied
upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s
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 1-23. Accordingly, we reverse.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 12, 2005. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed December 28, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed
February 16, 2006, which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner
as indicated in the communication dated March 29, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013