Appeal No. 2006-2089
Application No. 09/778,291
Claims 1-25, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shenoi in view of Shapiro.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and the 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, 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 have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 1-
25. Accordingly, we affirm.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 12, 2005. In response
to the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 8, 2006, a Reply Brief
was filed April 14, 2006, which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner in the communication dated May 10, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013